Reported / Citable
Background
Leticia Guzman alleged that an employee dropped an item onto her back while she was at a Ross Stores location in Brownsville, Texas. Her state-court petition named Ross Stores and an unidentified “John Doe” employee. Ross Stores removed the action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, asserting that Guzman was a Texas citizen, Ross Stores was a citizen of Delaware and California, and the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
Through Ross Stores’ Rule 26 disclosures, Guzman learned that the unidentified employee was Carla Alexander, also a Texas citizen. About three weeks later, Guzman sought leave to amend her complaint to substitute Alexander for John Doe and moved to remand because adding Alexander would eliminate complete diversity. Ross Stores opposed amendment, arguing that Guzman sought to defeat federal jurisdiction, could obtain complete relief from the company, and had no distinct claim against the employee.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Karen Betancourt recommended granting leave to amend after applying the factors from Hensgens v. Deere & Co. The court found no indication that Guzman’s purpose was solely to defeat federal jurisdiction: she had named John Doe in her original petition, alleged that he was a Texas resident, and did not learn Alexander’s identity until discovery. The proposed claim was not futile because the allegation that Alexander personally dropped the item on Guzman plausibly showed an active role in creating the danger and a breach of an independent duty of reasonable care under Texas law.
The court also found that Guzman acted diligently, filing within the amendment deadline and shortly after learning Alexander’s identity. Denying amendment could force Guzman to pursue parallel state and federal proceedings, creating inefficiency and a risk of prejudice. Finding no evidence of bad faith and concluding that the equitable factors favored joinder, the magistrate judge recommended allowing the amendment and, because Alexander’s joinder would destroy complete diversity, remanding the case to the 138th District Court of Cameron County, Texas.
Key Takeaways
- A plaintiff’s post-removal request to add a nondiverse defendant is evaluated by balancing the Hensgens factors, including the amendment’s purpose, the plaintiff’s diligence, potential prejudice, and other equitable considerations.
- Guzman’s prompt effort to identify a previously named John Doe defendant supported a finding that she was not using amendment solely to manufacture remand.
- The allegation that the employee personally dropped the item on Guzman plausibly supported individual liability, and adding that Texas defendant required remand for lack of complete diversity.
Why It Matters
The recommendation illustrates that substituting a newly identified employee for a John Doe defendant can defeat diversity jurisdiction when the employee is a citizen of the plaintiff’s state and the proposed claim is facially viable. Courts will examine the timing and substance of the amendment rather than treating the resulting loss of federal jurisdiction as proof of improper motive.
For premises-liability and negligence defendants, an employer’s ability to satisfy a judgment may not prevent joinder when the employee allegedly took the specific action that caused the injury. The prospect of duplicative proceedings against the employer in federal court and the employee in state court can weigh strongly in favor of amendment and remand.