Halilovic v. Krinninger
| Decision Date | 18 August 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 4:17 CV 01794 RWS,4:17 CV 01794 RWS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
| Parties | HAMDIJA HALILOVIC, Plaintiff, v. KAITLYN KRINNINGER, Defendant. |
This diversity matter is before me on Plaintiff Hamdija Halilovic's Motion to File an Amended Petition and Remand the Cause of Action [8]. Based upon a review of the record before me, I will grant Plaintiff's Motion and remand this case.
Plaintiff Hamdija Halilovic ("Halilovic") wishes to pursue negligence claims arising from two separate car accidents. First, on August 31, 2016, Defendant Kaitlyn Krinninger ("Krinniger") allegedly caused a car accident in the City of St. Louis. Halilovic asserts that he suffered physical injuries as a result of this accident, including injuries to his neck, back, shoulders, and spinal disc. Less than three months later, on November 18, 2016, Halilovic was involved in another car accident in the City of St. Louis, which was allegedly caused by Kharel Miller ("Miller"). Plaintiff alleges that as a result of the second accident, he suffered additional injuries and aggravation of his injuries from the first accident.
Halilovic filed an original petition against Krinninger as the sole defendant in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis on May 1, 2017. Krinninger removed the case to this court on June 23, 2017 on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, stating that the lawsuit is between citizens of different states and the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The Notice of Removal [1] asserts that at the time of the institution of this action, Halilovic was a resident and citizen of the State of Missouri and Krinninger was a resident and citizen of the State of Illinois.
Plaintiff has requested leave to amend his complaint in order to add Miller as a defendant to the action. Plaintiff's Second Amended Petition [12] states "Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Missouri and Defendant MILLER is a citizen of the State of Missouri." If Miller is joined as a defendant, the case should be remanded back to the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis because Miller's alleged Missouri citizenship will destroy complete diversity of citizenship and subject matter jurisdiction. There is no federal question at issue.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) authorizes a plaintiff to amend his complaint with the court's leave, and the court "should freely give leave when justice so requires.""The classic 'good reasons' for rejecting an amendment are: 'undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the non-moving party, or futility of amendment.'" Popp Telcom v. Am. Sharecom, Inc., 210 F.3d 928, 943 (8th Cir. 2000). "Delay alone is not a sufficient reason for denying leave." Buder v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 644 F.2d 690, 695 (8th Cir. 1981). "Rather, the party opposing the motion must show it will be unfairly prejudiced." Dennis v. Dillard Dept. Stores, Inc., 207 F.3d 523, 525 (8th Cir. 2000) (internal citations omitted). The decision of whether to grant leave to amend is within the court's discretion. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 330-32 (1971).
"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 remand the action to the State court." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e). Although Halilovic asserts in his motion that Miller is a "necessary party," he seeks permissive joinder under Fed.R.Civ.P. 20(a)(2) rather than required joinder under Fed.R.Civ.P. 19. See Bailey v. Bayer CropScience L.P., 563 F.3d 302, 308 (8th Cir. 2009) (). Fed.R.Civ.P. 20(a)(2) authorizes permissive joinder of defendants if: "(A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action."1
Missouri courts have granted permissive joinder in cases involving separate car accidents, finding that the accidents constituted a series of occurrences and involved a common question of fact under Fed.R.Civ.P. 20(a)(2) where the plaintiff suffered injury to the same body parts, the same injuries, and/or aggravation of the initial injuries. See, e.g., Hager v. McGlynn, 518 S.W.2d 173, 178 (Mo. App. 1974) ( ); State ex rel. Nixon v. Dally, 248 S.W.3d 615 (Mo. banc 2008) (confirming authority to permissively join defendants involved in discrete accidents where the "secondcollision aggravated injuries resulting from the first accident"); State ex rel. Kinsey v. Wilkins, 394 S.W.3d 446 (Mo. App. 2013) (). Here, the accidents sufficiently involve a series of occurrences and a common question of fact, because Halilovic alleges that the injuries from the first car accident were aggravated by the second accident and involve the same body parts. As a result, permissive joinder under Fed.R.Civ.P. 20(a)(2) may permit adding Miller as a defendant.
In deciding whether to grant joinder and order remand, courts consider factors including "[t]he extent to which the purpose of the amendment is to defeat federal jurisdiction, whether 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." Alpers Jobbing Co. v. Northland Cas....
To continue reading
Request your trial