Hickerson-Cooper v. Dollar Gen. Corp.

• Docket Number: CIVIL 22-5755 (RMB/EAP)
• Decision Date: 07 June 2024
• Citation: Hickerson-Cooper v. Dollar Gen. Corp., CIVIL 22-5755 (RMB/EAP) (D. N.J. Jun 07, 2024)
• Parties: NAIYM HICKERSON-COOPER, Plaintiff, v. DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

1

NAIYM HICKERSON-COOPER, Plaintiff, v. DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.

CIVIL No. 22-5755 (RMB/EAP)

United States District Court, D. New Jersey, Camden Vicinage

June 7, 2024

OPINION

Elizabeth A. Pascal, United States Magistrate Judge

This matter comes before the Court on the motion of DefendantDivisions, Inc. d/b/a Divisions Maintenance Group (“Divisions”) seeking leave to file a third-party complaint against non-partyEvergreen Consolidated, LLC (“Evergreen”), ECF No. 51(“Def.'s Motion”).PlaintiffNaiym Hickerson-Cooper filed a brief in opposition, ECF No. 52(“Pl.'s Opp.”), and Divisions filed a reply brief, ECF No. 53(“Def.'s Reply”).The Court has reviewed the parties' submissions and held oral argument on the motion.Based on the oral argument, the Court ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing on the jurisdictional implications of the motion.SeeECF No. 64.The Court has received and reviewed the parties' respective supplemental briefing.SeeECF Nos. 65, 66.For the reasons that follow, Divisions' motion to file a third-party complaint is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This personal injury case arises out of Plaintiff's fall on ice in the parking lot of a Dollar General store in Clayton New Jersey, owned and operated by DefendantDolgencorp LLC.^[1]On August 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in New Jersey Superior Court, Atlantic County alleging that his fall was due to Dolgencorp, LLC's negligence.SeeECF No. 1, Ex. A. Plaintiff alleges that he has “suffered serious personal injuries, would suffer severe physical and mental pain and suffering, was prevented from pursing his usual activities, and has significant permanent disabilities.”Id.¶ 12.Dolgencorp, LLC timely removed this matter to federal court on September 28, 2022.SeeECF No. 1.This Court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.Dolgencorp, LLC answered the Complaint on October 13, 2022.SeeECF No. 3.

On November 9, 2022, the Court held an initial conference, and the case proceeded into discovery.As discovery progressed, Dolgencorp, LLC identified Divisions as the entity with which it had contracted to provide snow and ice removal services at the Clayton store.SeePl.'s Opp.at 2.Accordingly, and with Dolgencorp LLC's consent, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, naming Divisions as a defendant in this matter.SeeECF Nos. 12, 13.On March 27, 2023, Dolgencorp, LLC answered the Amended Complaint, and asserted a cross-claim against Divisions.SeeECF No. 22.On March 30, 2023, Divisions answered the Amended Complaint and the cross-claim.SeeECF No. 23.

On December 1, 2023, counsel for Divisions wrote a letter to the Court, advising that after an investigation, Divisions learned that it had subcontracted the snow and ice removal services for the Clayton Dollar General store to Evergreen Consolidated, LLC d/b/a Nicely Done Landscaping (“Evergreen”).Divisions asserts that Evergreen “bears responsibility as it relates to the snow and ice treatment in the parking lot in question.”ECF No. 48.On January 5, 2024, Divisions filed the present motion, seeking leave to file a third-party complaint against Evergreen.See Def.'s Motion.Divisions seeks to add the following claims against Evergreen: Negligence (Count I); Breach of Contract (Count II); and Contractual Indemnification (Count III).See generallyid., Ex. A. On January 17, 2024, Plaintiff filed opposition.See Pl.'s Opp.On January 22, 2024, Divisions filed a reply.See Def.'s Reply.

On May 28, 2024, the Court held oral argument on the motion.SeeECF No. 63.The Court ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing on whether the addition of third-party Evergreen, a New Jersey corporation, would destroy diversity jurisdiction.^[2]SeeECF No. 64.The Court has reviewed the supplemental briefing; and the motion is now ripe for disposition.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14 governs third-party practice.“The purpose of Rule 14(a) is to avoid circuity of action and multiplicity of litigation.”Spencer v. Cannon Equip. Co., No. 07-2437, 2009 WL 1883929, at *2(D.N.J.June 29, 2009).According to the Rule, “[a] defending party may, as third-partyplaintiff, serve a summons and complaint on a nonparty who is or may be liable to it for all or part of the claim against it.”Fed.R.Civ.P. 14(a)(1).If the defending party files a third-party complaint more than fourteen days after serving its original answer, the defending party must obtain the court's leave to file a third-party complaint.Id.;seeXL Specialty Ins. Co. v. PCS Wireless Warehouse, Inc., No. 18-17210, 2020 WL 967855, at *2(D.N.J.Feb. 28, 2020).

The decision to grant leave to file a third-party complaint is within the sound discretion of the Court.SeeSomportex Ltd. v. Philadelphia Chewing Gum Corp., 453 F.2d 435, 439(3d Cir.1971);LM Ins. Co. v. All-Ply Roofing Co., No. 14-4723, 2017 WL 1136669, at *2(D.N.J.Mar. 27, 2017)(quotingSpencer, 2009 WL 1883929, at *2).Like a motion to amend pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2), a joinder request under Rule 14(a) should be “liberally granted when justice so requires.”XL Specialty Ins. Co., 2020 WL 967855, at *2(quotingRyan v. Collucio, 183 F.R.D. 420, 423(D.N.J.1998));seeUnited States v. Yellow Cab Co., 340 U.S. 543, 556(1951)(noting the purpose ofjoinder is “to facilitate, not to preclude, trial of multiple claims which otherwise would be triable only in separate proceedings”).

The Third Circuit has instructed that “courts should permit impleader unless ‘it will delay or disadvantage the existing action and the third-party claim obviously lacks merit.'”Wilson v. Beekman, 198 Fed.Appx. 239, 241(3d Cir.2006)(quoting6 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure§ 1443 (2d ed. 1990)).To determine whether leave should be granted, courts consider the following factors: “‘(1) the timeliness of the motion; (2) the probability of trial delay; (3) the potential for complication of issues at trial; and (4) prejudice to the original plaintiff.'”Igenomix, LLC v. Senergene Sols., LLC, No. 21-20495, 2023 WL 4744283, at *3(D.N.J.July 25, 2023)(quotingMeehan v. Bath Auth., LLC, No. 18-17444, 2021 WL 130483, at *2(D.N.J.Jan. 14, 2021)(internal quotation marks omitted)).^[3]The Court considers these factors in turn.

DISCUSSION

I.Rule 14 Analysis

In this case, Plaintiff opposes Divisions' motion, arguing that Divisions waited too long to add Evergreen.Pl.'s Opp. at 5-6.Plaintiff challenges Divisions' factual predicate for the motion and argues that Divisions was not diligent in pursuing the amendment.Seeid.Plaintiff believes that the amendment will result in significant delays as Evergreen will want to engage in discovery anew.Seeid.

A.Timeliness of the Motion

A district court may deny leave to amend when the amendment would cause undue delay.“Undue delay is ‘protracted and unjustified'-it ‘can place a burden on the court or counterparty' or show ‘a lack of diligence sufficient to justify a discretionary denial of leave.'”Spartan Concrete Prods., LLC v. Argos USVI, Corp., 929 F.3d 107, 115(3d Cir.2019)(quotingMullin v. Balicki, 875 F.3d 140, 151(3d Cir.2017)).Indeed, the Third Circuit has found that “[a]district court may deny leave to amend when the movant delays completion of discovery” or when the amendment“would fundamentally alter the proceeding and could have been asserted earlier.”Spartan Concrete Prods., LLC, 929 F.3d at 115-16(cleaned up)(citations omitted).To determine undue delay, the Court must focus on the moving party's diligence.Spencer, 2009 WL 1883929, at *3;see also, e.g., Campbell v. N.J. Transit Rail Operations Inc., No. 17-5250, 2021 WL 5413983, at *2-3(D.N.J.Nov. 18, 2021)(finding a motion untimely when the defendant moved to implead a third-party defendant four years after the defendant“had in its possession the basic facts necessary” to file its motion);Meehan, 2021 WL 130483, at *2(finding a motion untimely when filed over a year late and after the close of discovery);Rivera v. K-Mart Corp., No. 05-76, 2009 WL 196324, at *2(D.V.I.Jan. 27, 2009)(denying joinder three years into case when the basis for the amendment was the contract executed prior to the lawsuit);United Van Lines, LLC v. Lohr Printing, Inc., No. 11-4761, 2014 WL 4354109, at *4(D.N.J.Sept. 3, 2014)(denying joinder based on allegations stemming from an event that occurred two years prior).

Here Plaintiff argues that Divisions' motion is untimely because it had the facts necessary to file its motion “at the very least as of August 3, 2023.”Pl.'s Opp.at 5.On that date, Divisions identified Evergreen in its initial disclosures; provided Evergreen's Certificate of Liability Insurance; and also provided a copy of the agreement for snow removal services between Evergreen and Divisions.Id.Divisions counters that it could not confirm that Evergreen “performed snow and ice removal services at the subject premises prior to Plaintiff's alleged slip and fall[,] . . . trigger[ing] Evergreen's duty to inspect and monitor” until December 2023-one month before the motion was filed.Def.'s Replyat 3.At oral argument, Divisions confirmed that their investigation revealed a “good faith basis” to believe that Evergreen had in fact performed snow and ice removal services at the relevant location, which, in Divisions' view, triggered Evergreen's duty to continue to inspect the premises pursuant to the governing agreement.Notably, Plaintiff has not identified a specific injury that will flow from joining Evergreen at this juncture.SeePl.'sOpp. at 5-6.Accepting Divisions' explanation, the Court finds that any delay is not sufficiently prolonged to...