Smith v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GLORIA SMITH, Case No. 24-cv-06416-SI 8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE MOTION TO REMAND 9 v. AND MOTION TO AMEND 10 HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 15, 16 11 Defendants. 12 13 14 Before the Court is plaintiff’s motions to amend her complaint and remand the case to state 15 court. Dkt. Nos. 15-16. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS both motions and 16 REMANDS the case to Alameda County Superior Court. 17 18 BACKGROUND 19 Plaintiff Gloria Smith alleges she was injured on September 1, 2022, at Home Depot in San 20 Leandro, California when a tile fell from a shelf onto her right hand while an employee was re- 21 stocking shelves. Dkt. No. 16 (“Mot. to Remand”) at 3. Plaintiff was not introduced to a store 22 manager or made aware of the store manager’s name at the time of the incident, nor does she know 23 the name of the employee who was stocking shelves when the tile fell on her hand. Id. Plaintiff 24 filed a complaint for damages based on negligence in Alameda County Superior Court on August 25 13, 2024. Dkt. No. 1-1 (“Compl.”). Plaintiff seeks more than $3 million in damages. Dkt. No. 1- 26 3. Plaintiff named Home Depot, “Doe Store Manager,” and fifty other does as defendants. Compl. 27 at 1. Plaintiff alleged that at all relevant times the individual doe defendants were acting “within 1 manager and another unidentified employee are residents of the County of Alameda. Compl. at 2. 2 Plaintiff is a California resident. Id. 3 On September 12, 2024, defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. removed the case to federal 4 court. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff now presents two motions to this Court. First, plaintiff requests leave 5 to amend her complaint to name the Doe Store Manager, Crystal Anderson. Dkt. No. 15 (“Mot. to 6 Amend”) at 2. That motion also indicates that although plaintiff does not know the name of the 7 employee who was stocking shelves when the tile fell on plaintiff’s hand, “[p]laintiff intends to 8 name the employee as well after discovery has concluded.” Id. at 3, 7. Second, plaintiff requests 9 this action be remanded to state court because the naming of the store manager would defeat 10 diversity. Mot. to Remand at 8. 11 12 LEGAL STANDARD 13 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e), “[i]f after removal the plaintiff seeks to join additional 14 defendants whose joinder would destroy subject matter jurisdiction, the court may deny joinder, or 15 permit joinder and remand the action to the State court.” This language “is couched in permissive 16 terms and it clearly gives the district court the discretion to deny joinder.” Newcombe v. Adolf Coors 17 Co., 157 F.3d 686, 691 (9th Cir. 1998). Courts “generally consider” the following factors in this 18 discretionary inquiry: 19 “(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 20 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 21 federal jurisdiction; (5) whether the claims against the new defendant appear valid; and (6) whether denial of joinder will prejudice the plaintiff.” 22 IBC Aviation Servs., Inc. v. Compania Mexicana de Aviacion, S.A. de C.V., 125 F. Supp. 2d 1008, 23 1011 (N.D. Cal. 2000) (citing Palestini v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 193 F.R.D. 654, 658 (S.D. Cal. 24 2000)). If the Court permits joinder of a nondiverse defendant under section 1447(e), the Court 25 must remand the action to state court. Taylor v. Honeywell Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56001, 26 at *4 (N.D. Cal. May 10, 2010) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e)). 27 1 DISCUSSION 2 Weighing the six factors collectively, the Court finds that joining Ms. Anderson is 3 appropriate. Although Ms. Anderson is not a necessary party, it is legitimate to name a store 4 || manager as a defendant in California state court. Plaintiff indicated her intent to name the store 5 || manager from the beginning by including “Doe Store Manager” as a defendant in the original 6 || complaint. Other than the change of forum, there is no prejudice to defendant Home Depot by this 7 amendment. Plaintiffs motion to amend was timely and the statute of limitations has otherwise run 8 || on a separate complaint against Ms. Anderson. Regarding plaintiff's motive, the Court need not 9 view an amendment that destroys diversity with suspicion given the discretion allowed under section 10 1447(e). See IBC, 125 F. Supp. 2d at 1012; see also Oettinger v. Home Depot, No. C 09-01560 11 CW, 2009 WL 2136764, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2009) (“Defendant's view of Plaintiff's motive is 12 || no more compelling than Plaintiff's explanation of her motive, and Plaintiff's preference for state 5 13 || court is no less honorable than Defendant's for federal court.”). Furthermore, discovery has not 14 || commenced, and no dispositive motions have been filed. 15 The Court will thus exercise its discretion under section 1447(e) to permit plaintiff to amend 16 || her complaint and join Ms. Anderson as a defendant. As Ms. Anderson is alleged to be a California 3 17 resident, diversity jurisdiction no longer exists in this Court and the case must be remanded. 18 19 CONCLUSION 20 For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court GRANTS plaintiffs motions. 21 Because there is no longer subject matter jurisdiction, this action is REMANDED to the Superior 22 Court of California, County of Alameda, Case No. 24CV087004. 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: November 18, 2024 26 Adu | LY aw SUSAN ILLSTON 27 United States District Judge 28