(N.D. Ill. 1982), aff"d, 736 F. 2d 388 (7th Cir. 1984)). A motion for reconsideration will be
granted only if the court has patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the
adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning but
of apprehension. A further basis for a motion for reconsideration would be a controlling or
significant change in the law or facts since the submission of the issues to the court. Such
problems rarely arise; therefore, motions to reconsider should be equally rare. Bank of
Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales, Inc., 906 F.2d 1185, 1991 (7th Cir. 1990) (citing Above
the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). The Court

will now address whether it should reconsider its ruling granting Plaintiff leave to file an
amended complaint and add Arlington Heights Ford, a non-diverse party, as a defendant.

B. Legal Standard for Motion: mend

Plaintiff seeks leave to amend her Complaint and add Arlington Heights Ford as a
defendant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e). This statute provides the standard for joinder of non-
diverse parties: “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
remove the action to State court.” Id. There are four factors that courts can balance to determine
whether the Plaintiff should be allowed to join a non-diverse party, thereby destroying subject
matter jurisdiction. These factors include:

(1) the extent to which the joinder of the non-diverse party is sought merely to defeat

federal jurisdiction; (2) whether the plaintiff has been dilatory in asking for amendment;

(3) the balance between the risk that the plaintiff will experience significant injury by

pursuing multiple lawsuits if the amendment is not allowed and the risk that the defendant

will be prejudiced if the amendment is allowed; and (4) any other equitable considerations,
including defendant’s interest in maintaining a federal forum.

4


4. Other Equitable Considerations, Including Defendant's Interest in Maintaining
a Federal Forum

The most significant equitable consideration for maintaining a federal forum is that this
case will become part of coordinated multidistrict litigation proceedings (“MDL proceedings”) if
this action remains in federal court. Defendants are correct in their assertion that the MDL panel
determined that the centralization of cases arising out of circumstances similar to the Plaintiff's
cause of action is necessary to eliminate duplicate discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings,
and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Inre
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc, Tire Products Liability Litigation, 2000 WL 33416573 (Jud. Pan.
Mult. Lit. 2000).

In balancing the four factors to be considered in order to determine whether the Court
should grant Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend her complaint and add Arlington Heights Ford
as a defendant, the Court concludes that the factors weigh in favor of denying the amendment.
Although the Plaintiff was not dilatory in requesting leave to amend her Complaint, the timing of
Zuccaro’s motion for leave to amend, after this case was removed to federal court, leads to the
reasonable inference that the Plaintiff was attempting to defeat diversity jurisdiction in an attempt
to compel remand to State Court. Furthermore, the creation of the MDL proceedings weighs
heavily in Defendant’s favor, as the MDL panel was created for efficiency of litigation in cases

such as the Plaintiff's.

-7-


leave to file an amended complaint and add Arlington Heights Ford as a Defendant.’ On April
21, 2003, this Court granted the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint.
Arlington Heights Ford is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois.
Therefore, the addition of Arlington Heights Ford as a defendant would destroy subject matter
jurisdiction in this Court. Subsequently, on April 30, 2003, Zuccaro filed a motion to remand
this action to state court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e).. On April 23, 2003, the Defendant
filed a Motion for Reconsideration, asking the Court to reconsider its ruling which granted the
Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint, and add Arlington Heights Ford as a defendant. On
April 29, 2003, this Court issued an order denying Ford’s Motion for Reconsideration.? On May
28, 2003, this Court, on its own motion, vacated its April 29, 2003 Order denying the
Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration of the order granting Zuccaro’s motion for leave to

amend her complaint and add Arlington Heights Ford as a defendant.

Il. ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standard for Motions for Reconsideration

Motions for reconsideration are limited in their function: “to correct manifest errors of

law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole, 90
F.3d 1264, 1269 (1996) (citing Keene Corp. v. Int’l Fidelity Ins. Co., 561 F. Supp. 656, 665

Arlington Heights Ford is the car dealer/distributor from whom Zuccaro purchased her
2001 Ford Explorer.

2On May 8, 2003, this Court granted Bridgestone Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss
Counts Ii] and IV of Plaintiffs first amended complaint. Therefore, Ford and Arlington Heights
Ford are the only remaining Defendants in this cause of action.

-3-



Hensgens v, Deere & Co,, 833 F. 2d 1179, 1182 (Sth Cir. 1987). See also Sexton v. G&K Servs.,
Inc., 51 F. Supp. 2d 1311 (M.D. Ala. 1999); Wells v. Certainteed Corp., 950 F. Supp. 200 (E.D.
Mich. 1997); Witkowski v. Toyota Industrial Equipment, No. 92 C 0851, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
9471 (N.D. Ill. June 29, 1992). The Court will address each of the four factors in turn, in order to
determine whether Plaintiff should have been granted leave to amend her Complaint.

1. Extent to Which Non-Diverse Party is Sought Merely to Defeat Federal

Jurisdiction

Plaintiff sought leave to add Arlington Heights Ford as a Defendant on April 17, 2003,

subsequent to removal of this action to federal court. Zuccaro was fully aware of the identity of
the dealer/distributor of her 2001 Ford Explorer prior to her request to add Arlington Heights Ford
as a defendant. However, Plaintiff offers no reason as to why she failed to name Arlington
Heights Ford as a defendant in her original Complaint. “When a plaintiff was aware at the time of
the filing of her original complaint of the identity of the defendant she now seeks to add, there
arises some suspicion of the plaintiff's motives to amend.” In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v.
Ford Motor Co., 129 F. Supp. 2d 1202, 1205 (S.D. Ind. 2001) (citing County of Cook v. Phillip
Morris, Inc., No. 97 C3295, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16581, 1997 WL 667777, at 3 (N.D. Ill.
October 16, 1997)). This leads to a reasonable inference that Zuccaro sought to add Arlington
Heights Ford as a defendant solely to defeat diversity jurisdiction.

2. Extent to Which Plaintiff has Been Dilatory in Requesting an Amendment

To determine whether a plaintiff has been dilatory in requesting an amendment, courts

measure the passage of time between either the filing of the case or removal and the filing of the

motion to amend. Inre Bridgestone, 129 F. Supp 2d at 1205. Plaintiff's cause of action was

5.



Il. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Ford Motor Company’s Motion For Reconsideration of the Order
granting Zuccaro leave to amend her complaint to join Arlington Heights Ford as a Defendant is

GRANTED. The Order granting Zuccaro leave to file an amended complaint is VACATED.

Enter:

add one

David H. Coar

United States District Judge

Dated: November 5, 2003



~ »
Mimute Order Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Nameot swig sete | David H, Coat mos Si We
CASE NUMBER 03 C 2152 DATE 11/5/2003

CASE Zuccaro vs. Ford Motor Company, Inc.

TITLE

{In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.]
Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration [16-1]

DOCKET ENTRY:
@m oa Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) o Brief in support of motion due__.
(3) Qo Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer briefdue__.
(4) o Ruling/Hearingon__setfor___at
(5) Oo Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__setfor___at
(6) Oo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on____—_—ssetfor at.
(7) QO Trial[set for/re-set for] on__at
(8) Qo [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continuedto__—_at
(9) i) This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

OFRCP4(m) OLocal Rule 41.1 OFRCP41(a)(1) 0 FRCP41{a}2).

(ao [Other docket entry} | Ford Motor Company, Inc.’s Motion for Reconsideration [16-1] of the order
granting Zuccaro leave to file amended complaint is GRANTED. The Order granting Zuccaro leave to

file an amended complaint [13-1] is VACATED. "

(ii) sol [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required.

Notices mailed by judge's staff.

Notified counsel by telephone.

X_ | Docketing to mail notices.
Mail AO 450 form.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge. “ 1yn09 Larussia’s'n
TENG)
ace) Seputy's 2:2 HY OL AGNEO

initials

ONE Id
rae}

1 veg



removed to this Court on March 26, 2003. Zuccaro filed her motion granting leave to amend her
Complaint on April 17, 2003. The Court does not consider the passage of 21 days to be dilatory.
3. Balance of Risks to Plaintiff and Defendant

The third factor requires the Court to explore the balance between the risk that the plaintiff
will suffer significant injury by pursuing multiple lawsuits if the amendment is not allowed and
the risk that the defendant will be prejudiced if the amendment is allowed. See Hensgens, 833
F.2d at 1182. Plaintiff has not indicated that she will be prejudiced if Arlington Heights Ford is
not added as a Defendant. There is no indication that the Plaintiff cannot fully recover for her
injuries from Ford if liability is established. Furthermore, the establishment of a multidistrict
litigation panel for actions arising out of circumstances similar to Plaintiff's heightens the
likelihood that the Defendant will be prejudiced if the case is not allowed to proceed in federal
court.? This issue will now be addressed in more detail, when the Court discusses other equitable
considerations that should be taken under advisement when considering whether a plaintiff should
be allowed to join a non-diverse party as a defendant after this cause of action was removed to

federal court.

*Ford argues that Arlington Heights Ford was fraudulently joined. Defendants contend
that there is no possibility that Zuccaro can prevail against Arlington Heights Ford in State Court.
(Fraudulent joinder occurs either when there is no possibility that a plaintiff can state a cause of
action against a non-diverse defendant in state court or where there has been outright fraud of
plaintiff's pleading of the jurisdictional facts. Gottlieb v. Westin Hotel Company, 990 F.2d 323,
327 (7th Cir. 1993)). However, Illinois’ statutes regarding distributor liability for product
liability actions, 735 ILCS 5/2-621(c), does allow Zuccaro to state a cause of action against a
distributor on a negligence theory. Although the Plaintiff may be able to state a cause of action
against Arlington Heights Ford, it is still within this Court’s discretion to permit or deny joinder.

6-



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

JACQUELINE ZUCCARO,

PLAINTIFF

)

)

)

)

)

v. )
) No. 03 C 2152
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, INC., )
BRIDGESTONE CORPORATION, ) HONORABLE DAVID H. COAR
BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE )
AMERICAS HOLDING, INC., )
BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE NORTH )
AMERICAN TIRE, LLC., )
BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE, INC., )
BRIDGESTONE (U.S.A.), INC., )
AL PIEMONTE ARLINGTON )
HEIGHTS FORD, INC. d/b/a )
ARLINGTON HEIGHTS FORD, INC., )
AHF, INC. d/b/a ARLINGTON HEIGHTS )
FORD, INC., and ARLINGTON )
HEIGHTS FORD, INC., )
)

t hte

Noy, “VPs,

er)
DEFENDANTS XR

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Defendant Ford Motor Company, Inc. (“Ford” or “Defendant”) filed this Motion for
Reconsideration, requesting that the Court reconsider its April 21, 2003 ruling granting Plaintiff
Jacqueline Zuccaro (“‘Zuccaro” or “Plaintiff”) leave to file an amended complaint and add Al
Piemonte Arlington Heights Ford (“‘Arlington Heights Ford”) as a defendant. The amendment
would destroy subject matter jurisdiction, thereby requiring that this Court remand this action to

state court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (e). The Court originally denied Ford’s Motion for
-l-
fe



Reconsideration on April 29, 2003. However, on May 28, 2003, the Court, on its own Motion,
vacated its order denying Ford’s Motion for Reconsideration, and allowed the parties to brief the
issue of whether Plaintiff should be granted leave to file an amended complaint. For the reasons
set forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration. The April 21,

2003 order granting Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint is VACATED.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This Motion for Reconsideration arises out of a products liability action that originated in
state court, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (“State Court”). On February 21, 2003,
Zuccaro initiated this action against Ford, the Bridgestone Corporation, Bridgestone/Firestone
America’s Holding, Inc., Bridgestone/Firestone North American Tire, LLC,
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., and Bridgestone U.S.A., Inc. (collectively, “Bridgestone/Firestone”
or “Defendants”) in State Court. Plaintiff seeks recovery for property, pecuniary and personal
damages she alleges were directly and proximately caused by the defective Firestone Wilderness
AT tires on her 2001 Ford Explorer, which resulted in a blow-out and subsequent loss of control
of her vehicle on April 22, 2001.

On March 26, 2003, Defendant Bridgestone/Firestone North America Tire, LLC filed a
Notice of Removal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446, which removed this action from State Court to
this Court, as complete diversity of citizenship existed between the Plaintiff and Defendants. On

April 17, 2003, Zuccaro filed an emergency motion, requesting that the Court grant Plaintiff

-2-