IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

ANUM SADRUDDIN ALI, individually and 

as representative of the Estate of Sarafaz 

Karawadia, and as next friend of AK, a 

minor, KULSUMBEN KAROWADIA, SIMI 

ALTAF KASOWADIA, individual and as 

representative of the Estate of Alta 

Kasowadia, and as next friend of ZK, a 

minor, KURBANALI KAROWADIA,

Plaintiffs,

v.

H.W. LOCHNER, INC. and ROBERT 

CAGLE,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-126-MJT

MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS AND 

ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Local Rules of Court for the Assignment of Duties to 

United States Magistrate Judges, the district court referred Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File 

First Amended Complaint [Dkt. 7]1for consideration and disposition. On June 15, 2023, Judge 

Stetson entered a Report and Recommendation [Dkt. 20] in which she recommended granting 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint, joining several non-diverse 

defendants, and remanding this case back to the 172nd District Court of Jefferson County pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e). On June 29, 2023, Defendants timely objected to the Report and 

Recommendation. [Dkt. 24]. 

A party who timely files specific, written objections to a magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation is entitled to a de novo determination of those findings or recommendations to 

1 Also referred were Plaintiffs’ Motion for Expedited Consideration of Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint 

[Dkt.8], Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand [Dkt. 9], and Defendants’ Motion for Leave to Designate Responsible Third 

Parties [Dkt. 12]. 

Case 1:23-cv-00126-MJT Document 26 Filed 07/10/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 1093
2

which the party specifically objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2)-(3). To 

be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which objection 

is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates 

by reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Frivolous, 

conclusive or general objections need not be considered by the district court. Nettles v. 

Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by 

Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1412 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). 

In the report, Judge Stetson conducted a careful and fact-specific analysis of the four 

Hensgens factors used to determine whether to permit or deny joinder of Plaintiffs’ proposed nondiverse parties as defendants in this suit, particularly in light of the unusual circumstances of this 

suit and how it arrived in federal court. [Dkt. 20 at 4-8]. Defendants object to Judge Stetson’s 

findings and conclusions of law on three of the four the Hensgens factors. 

Defendants’ objection to Judge Stetson’s findings and conclusions of law primarily restate 

arguments made in their response [Dkt. 10] that were fully considered and rejected in the report. 

Reviewing the report de novo, the Court agrees with Judge Stetson’s analysis as to all four 

Hensgens factors. 

Defendants’ inclusion of additional case citations2to support these repeated arguments are 

not persuasive, as those cases do not share sufficiently similar procedural histories to this case, nor 

are they binding on this court or contrary to Judge Stetson’s analysis. These newly-cited cases 

include, for example, Doucet-Speer v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 20-513-SDD-RLB, 2021 

WL 1396470 (M.D. La. Mar. 10, 2021), and Reyes v. Vanmatre, No. 4:21-CV-01926, 2021 WL 

2

It is unclear to the Court why Defendants did not include these cases in their original briefing if Defendants consider 

them so supportive as to warrant setting aside Judge Stetson’s Report and Recommendation. 

Case 1:23-cv-00126-MJT Document 26 Filed 07/10/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 1094
3

5905557 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 14, 2021). In addition to failing to share an analogous procedural history 

to the instant suit, the courts in both of these cases also observe that the plaintiffs failed to provide 

any explanations as to why they are seeking to join the proposed non-diverse defendants after-thefact in this way. Doucet-Speer, 2021 WL 1396470, at *3 (“DSA also provides no explanation for 

its decision to file separate suits in the 19th JDC and the 15th JDC.”); Reyes, 2021 WL 5905557, 

at *3 (“Tellingly, there is nothing in the record that explains what information Reyes’s counsel 

learned before deciding to seek leave to add the proposed defendants to the case.”). Here, Plaintiffs 

have provided such explanations, and the Court, as did Judge Stetson, finds them compelling as to 

the first, third, and fourth factors. Moreover, the court in Reyes additionally determined that the 

plaintiff had no colorable claim against the proposed defendants, unlike the proposed defendants 

in this suit against whom Plaintiffs obviously have a colorable claim. Reyes, 2021 WL 5905557, 

at *4 (“In short, the proposed amended complaint fails to state a colorable claim for relief against 

the proposed defendants.”).3 

Furthermore, Defendants’ insistence that the Court deny Plaintiffs’ motion because 

Plaintiffs are seeking joinder for the purpose of defeating federal jurisdiction continues (as it did 

in their briefing) to ignore the circumstances of this suit and how it arrived in federal court. The 

report correctly considered the first Hensgens factor within the whole context of this suit and found 

that it weighed against permitting joinder because Plaintiffs are indeed seeking to defeat federal 

jurisdiction, but the report did not give it strong weight given the circumstances.4 [Dkt. 20 at 4-

3 Although the newly-cited cases, including Doucet-Speer and Reyes, can be further distinguished in additional ways 

from the instant suit, the Court finds it unnecessary to analyze each and every difference line-by-line. The Hensgens

factors typically apply a fact-specific analysis to the circumstances of a particular case, so it is unsurprising that the 

instant suit is distinguishable. 

4 Even if the report had determined that this first factor weighed more strongly against joinder, the weight of the other 

three factors balanced against the first factor could still indicate that joinder should be permitted. The Hensgens

factors are a balancing test and must be considered as a whole—the first factor is not dispositive (nor have Defendants

cited caselaw to support that), and it would be erroneous to treat it as dispositive. 

Case 1:23-cv-00126-MJT Document 26 Filed 07/10/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 1095
4

6]. The report then considered the other three Hensgens factors and correctly found they all 

favored or strongly favored permitting joinder. [Dkt. 20 at 6-8]. Finally, the report balanced5the 

four Hensgens factors together and correctly determined that joinder should be permitted and this 

suit should be remanded. [Dkt. 20 at 8.]. 

The Magistrate Judge’s findings of fact and conclusions of law on the Hensgens factors are 

correct for the reasons explained in the report. Defendants’ objections are without merit and are 

overruled. 

It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants’ objections [Dkt. 24] are OVERRULED. The 

Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge [Dkt. 20] is ADOPTED. 

Accordingly, it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First 

Amended Complaint [Dkt. 7] is GRANTED. Johnson Bros. Corporation, a Southland 

Corporation, Southland Holdings, LLC, Southland Contracting, Inc., and Heritage Materials, LLC 

are JOINED as defendants, and this case is REMANDED back to the 172nd District Court of 

Jefferson County pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e). 

5 Defendants’ objection incorrectly states that “the Court found that because of Plaintiffs’ ultimate goal was to 

consolidate the Second Case with the First Court case to avoid parallel litigation, the Hensgens factors weighed in 

favor of granting leave to amend.” [Dkt. 24 at 3] (emphasis added). The report’s finding on the first Hensgens factor

regarding Plaintiffs’ ultimate goal of avoiding parallel litigation, rather than purely to defeat jurisdiction with no other 

motive [Dkt. 20 at 5], was not the sole reason the report recommended permitting joinder. Rather, the report balanced 

all four Hensgens factors and found that, together, they indicated that joinder should be permitted. [Dkt. 20 at 8]. 

____________________________

Michael J. Truncale

United States District Judge SIGNED this 10th day of July, 2023.

Case 1:23-cv-00126-MJT Document 26 Filed 07/10/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 1096