Opinion ID: 2734199
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of the Haydens’ Motion to Join DRS

Text: The Haydens argue that the District Court abused its discretion by denying their Motion to Join DRS. A plaintiff generally may join defendants in an action if the plaintiff (1) asserts a right to relief arising out of the same transaction or occurrence, and (2) “any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(A)-(B). The Haydens contend that Rule 20’s requirements were satisfied because Westfield hired DRS to replace the tarp on the Haydens’ roof so Westfield’s expert could inspect the roof, making their claims against DRS part of the same transaction or occurrence that gave rise to the Haydens’ complaint against Westfield. The District Court, on the other hand, denied joinder because it found the matter wholly “distinct and distant from the insurance contract interpretation issues at the center of this case.” App. 4. We cannot say the District Court’s denial was an abuse of discretion. The Haydens’ breach of contract and statutory bad faith claims against Westfield arose out of Westfield’s refusal to pay the Haydens’ insurance claim as of March 2012. In contrast, the Haydens’ proposed negligence claim against DRS arose out of DRS’s installation of an underlayment to their roof nearly a year later in February 2013—a claim they did not allege against Westfield. These claims are notably distinct in both time and subject matter. Thus, the District Court’s denial of joinder under Rule 20 was well within its discretion. 8 Moreover, the District Court properly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the Haydens’ claims against DRS because adding DRS, a Pennsylvania citizen, as a defendant would have destroyed diversity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The Haydens argue that the District Court could have proceeded under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, which allows district courts to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over “all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within [the district court’s] original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). But supplemental jurisdiction requires a “common nucleus of operative facts.” Lyon v. Whisman, 45 F.3d 758, 760 (3d Cir. 1995). In light of the differences in time and subject matter between the Haydens’ claims against Westfield and their claims against DRS discussed above, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in holding that the claims lacked a common nucleus of operative facts.5 Because the District Court would have lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the Haydens’ claims against DRS, the Court had the option either to deny joinder or to permit joinder and remand the action to state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e).6 While we have 5 Even if the Haydens could satisfy the common nucleus of operative facts requirement, the District Court would have lacked jurisdiction over the Haydens’ claims against DRS in any event because DRS would have been a party joined under Rule 20, and § 1367(b) precludes district courts from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over “claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure . . . when exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b); see also 13D Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 3567.2 (3d ed. 2014). 6 Section 1447(e) provides: “If after removal the plaintiff seeks to join additional 9 not yet addressed the appropriate analytical approach to § 1447(e) (and need not do so here), the Fifth Circuit has instructed that when a district court is “faced with an amended pleading naming a new nondiverse defendant in a removed case, [it] should scrutinize that amendment more closely than an ordinary amendment,” and should consider “the extent to which the purpose of the amendment is to defeat federal jurisdiction, whether [the] plaintiff has been dilatory in asking for amendment, whether [the] plaintiff will be significantly injured if amendment is not allowed, and any other factors bearing on the equities.” Hensgens v. Deere & Co., 833 F.2d 1179, 1182 (5th Cir. 1987); see also City of Perth Amboy v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 539 F. Supp. 2d 742, 746 (D.N.J. 2008) (noting that district courts within the Third Circuit have adopted the Hensgens approach). Given these considerations, the District Court’s decision to deny joinder, rather than permit joinder and remand the case, was a proper exercise of its discretion. The Haydens’ Motion to Join DRS came well after the close of discovery and the briefing of dispositive motions. In fact, by the time the Haydens moved to join DRS, the Haydens had failed to respond to discovery, despite the District Court’s order to compel, and they had already attempted to join two entirely different defendants whose joinder also would have destroyed federal jurisdiction. Further, as the District Court noted, the Haydens could have “easily and timely” filed suit against DRS in state court. App. 4. Thus, the defendants whose joinder would destroy subject matter jurisdiction, the court may deny joinder, or permit joinder and remand the action to the State court.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e). 10 District Court’s denial of joinder was not an abuse of discretion under either Rule 20 or § 1447(e).