Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00732/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00732-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cantex, Inc.
Defendant
Estate of Dejan Popeskovich, Deceased
Plaintiff
New York Rexel, Inc.
Defendant
Branislava Popeskovich
Plaintiff
Ratomir Popeskovich
Plaintiff
Summers Group, Inc. dba Rexel Norcal Valley
Defendant

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

RATOMIR POPESKOVICH and

BRANISLAVA POPESKOVICH, THE

ESTATE OF DEJAN POPESKOVICH,

DECEASED, by and through his

heirs, RATOMIR POPESKOVICH and

BRANISLAVA POPESKOVICH

NO. CIV. S-05-0732 WBS KJM

Plaintiffs, 

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE:

MOTION TO REMAND, MOTION TO

AMEND COMPLAINT

CANTEX, INC., REXEL NORCAL

VALLEY, INC., NEW YORK REXEL,

INC., and DOES 1-100

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

This case revolves around the death of plaintiffs’ son

Dejan Popeskovich (“Dejan”) on September 29, 2004. Plaintiffs

allege that Dejan was hired to transport PVC pipe from the

premises of defendant Cantex, Inc. (“Cantex”) to the premises of

defendant Rexel Norcal Valley, Inc. (“Rexel Norcal”) and further

allege that he was crushed by that PVC pipe while it was being

unloaded at Rexel Norcal.

Plaintiffs seek to amend their complaint to add two

Case 2:05-cv-00732-WBS -KJM Document 22 Filed 07/29/05 Page 1 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

individual defendants who are allegedly California residents and

supervisors at Rexel Norcal. Plaintiffs also seek an order

remanding this case to state court. 

I. Procedural History

Plaintiffs filed their complaint for wrongful death in

California Superior Court in and for the County of Sacramento on

March 4, 2005. (Rexel Notice of Removal ¶ 1) Defendants New

York Rexel, Inc. and Summers Group, Inc. dba Rexel Norcal Valley

(collectively, “Rexel”) were served with a copy of plaintiffs’

complaint. Rexel received that complaint and a summons on March

11, 2005. (Id. ¶ 2). Rexel filed their notice of removal in

this court on April 14, 2005, asserting that this court has

jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. §

1441(removal statute); 28 U.S.C. § 1332(diversity jurisdiction

statute). Cantex filed its Notice of Joinder in Petition for

Removal with this court on May 16, 2005.

Plaintiffs now seek to add two individual defendants,

Rexel Norcal supervisors Paul J. Jeffries and Ron Ward, who are

California residents. Defendants concede that the claim against

the individuals appears to be valid. (Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. of

Opp’n to Mot. to Amend at 9).

II. Discussion

Where a plaintiff seeks to join a nondiverse defendant

after removal, 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e) gives the district court

discretion to allow the joinder or to not allow the joinder. 28

U.S.C. § 1447(e)(“If after removal the plaintiff seeks to join

additional defendants whose joinder would destroy subject matter

jurisdiction, the court may deny joinder, or permit joinder and

Case 2:05-cv-00732-WBS -KJM Document 22 Filed 07/29/05 Page 2 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

remand the action to the State court”). Once joinder of a

nondiverse defendant is permitted, remand is mandatory. Id.

Plaintiffs and defendants agree that the court should

apply the six factor test outlined in three recent district court

cases to determine whether the court should permit the plaintiffs

to amend to add individual defendants. See Boon v. Allstate Ins.

Co., 229 F. Supp. 2d 1016, 1020 (C.D. Cal. 2002); IBC Aviation

Servs. v. Compania Mexicana de Aviacion, S.A. de C.V., 125 F.

Supp. 2d 1008, 1011 (N.D. Cal. 2000); Clinco v. Roberts, 41 F.

Supp. 2d 1080, 1082 (C.D. Cal. 1999). The six factors are:

(1) whether the party sought to be joined is needed for just

adjudication and would be joined under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 19(a); (2) whether the statute of limitations

would preclude an original action against the new defendants

in state court; (3) whether there has been unexplained delay

in requesting joinder; (4) whether joinder is intended

solely to defeat federal jurisdiction; (5) whether the

claims against the new defendant appear valid; and (6)

whether denial of joinder will prejudice the plaintiff.

IBC Aviation, 125 F. Supp. 2d at 1011. 

Applying these six factors, the court finds that

plaintiffs should be permitted to amend their complaint to add

the individual defendants. Defendants concede the third and

fifth factors favor plaintiffs. The four factors that remain to

be discussed are the first, second, fourth and sixth.

“Although courts consider whether a party would meet

Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 19's standard for a necessary party, amendment

under § 1447(e) is a less restrictive standard than for joinder

under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 19.” IBC Aviation, 125 F. Supp. 2d at

1011-12. “Courts that have approved discretionary joinder look

at least for a high degree of involvement by the defendant in the

occurrences that gave rise to the plaintiff’s cause of action.” 

Case 2:05-cv-00732-WBS -KJM Document 22 Filed 07/29/05 Page 3 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Boon, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1022 (C.D. Cal. 2002). “Courts disallow

joinder of non-diverse defendants where those defendants are only

tangentially related to the cause of action or would not prevent

complete relief.” IBC Aviation, 125 F. Supp. 2d at 1012. 

In this case, the supervisors’ degree of involvement in

the occurrences at issue was high. They were allegedly in charge

at the Rexel Norcal site where and when decedent was killed. 

Defendants argue that, due to an indemnity agreement

between the supervisors and Rexel, and due to the doctrine of

respondeat superior, plaintiffs may recover the full amount of

money they seek against the existing defendants. Existing

defendants claim that they “have already stipulated that if Paul

J. Jeffries and Ron Ward are added to the complaint, the removing

defendants will defend and indemnify them.” (Defs.’ Mem. in

Supp. of Opp’n to Mot. to Remand at 10). The defendants have not

filed with the court any such written stipulation, nor have they

presented any evidence in the form of declarations stating when

that indemnity agreement was formed and its terms. Their only

evidence of such a stipulation is contained in the memorandum in

opposition to the motion to amend. 

If the court assumes that defendants will be able to

present to the court a legally effective indemnification

agreement, the first factor in the six-factor test marginally

favors not permitting amendment. See IBC Aviation, 125 F. Supp.

2d at 1012(“Courts disallow joinder of non-diverse defendants

where those defendants are only tangentially related to the cause

of action or would not prevent complete relief.”).

As to the second factor, plaintiffs concede that

Case 2:05-cv-00732-WBS -KJM Document 22 Filed 07/29/05 Page 4 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

plaintiffs would not be prevented from bringing a cause of action

against Jeffries and Ward in state court by the relevant statute

of limitations. However, the IBC Aviation court, when

considering this second factor, also considered the potential for

waste of judicial resources and the risk of inconsistent results. 

125 F. Supp. 2d at 1012(“Second [i.e., applying the second

factor], even though a state court action against [individual

defendant] might be possible, requiring IBC to litigate

essentially the same issues in two forums would be a waste of

judicial resources and risks inconsistent results.”). Defendants

themselves assert that the facts tending to support any liability

against Ward and/or Jeffries will also tend to support any

liability against Rexel. It would be a waste of judicial

resources, and would risk inconsistent results, for two courts to

hear essentially the same evidence. The degree of overlap

between the case against Ward and Jeffries and the case against

existing defendants is high. Thus, the court considers this

factor to not weigh in favor of either side.

The fourth factor the court considers is whether

joinder is intended solely to defeat federal jurisdiction. It is

not. Plaintiffs’ counsel spoke about his intent at the hearing

on this matter. He forthrightly told the court that he prefers

to put these individuals on the stand as defendants rather than

just employees of defendant companies because, in his experience,

juries view defendants who take the stand in a different light

than they view employees of defendants. It be inappropriate to

join an individual as a defendant for that purpose if there was

not otherwise a valid claim against that individual. However,

Case 2:05-cv-00732-WBS -KJM Document 22 Filed 07/29/05 Page 5 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

there is nothing improper about joining an individual as a

defendant, with the goal of gaining a tactical courtroom

advantage, where counsel in good faith believes plaintiff has a

meritorious claim against that individual. Plaintiffs’ counsel’s

reason for joining these two individuals shows that joinder is

not intended solely to defeat federal jurisdiction. See IBC

Aviation, 125 F. Supp. 2d at 1011.

Further, the objective evidence does not demonstrate

that plaintiffs’ intent was to add individual defendants solely

to defeat diversity. There is no indication that plaintiffs’

counsel knew the identities of Ward and Jeffries when plaintiffs

filed suit. Defendants did not provide plaintiffs with a list of

management personnel at the site where Dejan died, so independent

research into their identities was necessary. (Callahan Decl. ¶

3). Plaintiffs’ counsel has been diligently investigating the

accident and the management hierarchy of Rexel from the time

before the filing of the complaint to the present. (See id. ¶¶

3, 4)(outlining steps taken, including hiring a private

investigator and acquiring accident files from the California

Industrial Safety Division of Occupational Safety and Health, to

find the identity of managers).

Defendants claim that plaintiffs’ counsel is engaging

in gamesmanship by not naming individual defendants in the first

complaint and then naming them only after the case had been

removed. However, when pressed by the court, defendants’ counsel

was unable to identify any incentive that plaintiffs had for

playing such a game. Further, as previously stated, there is no

indication that plaintiffs knew the identities of Ward and

Case 2:05-cv-00732-WBS -KJM Document 22 Filed 07/29/05 Page 6 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

Jeffries at the time they filed suit.

Finally, the court considers the sixth factor, whether

denial of joinder will prejudice the plaintiffs. As discussed

above, the overlap between the evidence plaintiffs will present

in an action against individual defendants and the evidence they

will present against the existing defendants is significant. IBC

Aviation is on point: “[D]enying the amendment would require

Plaintiff[s] to choose between redundant litigation arising out

of the same facts and involving the same legal issues or

foregoing its potential claims against [individual defendants],

while allowing amendment will not prejudice the Defendants as

discovery has not yet begun.” 125 F. Supp. 2d 1008, 1013. (See

Joint Status Report at 3)(suggesting that Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 26 initial disclosures in this case be made by August

18, 2005). Therefore, this sixth factor weighs heavily in favor

of permitting amendment.

Additionally, the court notes that there will be no

prejudice to the corporate defendants by permitting the

individual defendants to be added. Substantially the same

evidence will be presented on both sides, whether the individual

defendants are joined or not. And there will be little

prejudice, if any, to the individual defendants, because they

will be defended and indemnified against any liability by their

employer. 

On balance, the six factor test outlined in IBC

Case 2:05-cv-00732-WBS -KJM Document 22 Filed 07/29/05 Page 7 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The court notes that all defendants did not join in the 1

petition for removal within 30 days of receiving notice, and

therefore remand is proper on this basis as well. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1446(b). Plaintiffs did not make the timeliness of removal an

issue, however, and therefore the court does not decide the issue

on that ground.

8

Aviation favors permitting amendment pursuant to § 1447(e).1

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to

amend be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to remand

be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED, and this matter is hereby

REMANDED to Superior Court of the State of California in and for

the County of Sacramento.

DATED: July 29, 2005

Case 2:05-cv-00732-WBS -KJM Document 22 Filed 07/29/05 Page 8 of 8