Anzures v. Prologis Texas I LLC, 886 F. Supp. 2d 555

Background

Plaintiff, an employee of Empire Roofing, was injured on a roof when he fell through an uncovered skylight in May 2010.
Plaintiff filed suit in El Paso County, Texas, asserting state-law negligence and premises liability claims; defendants included several Prologis entities, PMI, and Rodriguez.
Defendants removed the case to federal court based on diversity; Rodriguez was later dismissed as a non-diverse improper party following remand order in early 2012.
Empire Roofing was designated as a responsible third party under Texas law after an April 2012 motion by defendants, narrowing remaining defendants to PMI and Empire Roofing (pending joinder).
Plaintiff moved on April 30, 2012 for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint to add Prologis, Southern Roof Consultants, and Empire Roofing, including a negligent hiring claim against Prologis.
The court granted in part and denied in part the motion, denying adding Empire Roofing but permitting joinder of Prologis and Southern Roof and allowing a negligent hiring claim against Prologis; summary judgment was denied as moot.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether adding Empire Roofing destroys diversity under § 1447(e).	Plaintiff argues joinder should be permitted to pursue viable claims against Empire Roofing.	PMI contends adding Empire Roofing would destroy jurisdiction and require remand.	Denied; adding Empire Roofing denied under § 1447(e) due to lack of strong equities and delay.
Whether Plaintiff has shown good cause under Rule 16 to amend after the scheduling deadline.	Plaintiff contends diligent discovery and discovery-based identification of Empire Roofing justify amendment.	Defendant argues failure to timely move fails Rule 16 good-cause standard.	Denied Empire Roofing but good cause found to allow other amendments (Southern Roof, Prologis) under Rule 16.
Whether adding Southern Roof as a party is proper under Rule 16 and Rule 15.	Southern Roof's potential liability and discovery indicate amendment is warranted.	Opposes as late and potentially prejudicial without good cause.	Granted; Southern Roof joined as party; Rule 16 factors satisfied and amendment not futile under Rule 15.
Whether a negligent hiring claim against Prologis may be added under Rule 16/Rule 15.	Proposed negligent hiring claim against Prologis should be allowed as part of the amended pleadings.	Opposes as unnecessary or duplicative, but later analysis treated as permissible with the same rationale as Southern Roof.	Granted; negligent hiring claim against Prologis permitted under Rule 16 and Rule 15.
Whether the overall amendment strategy warrants leave to amend given potential prejudice and docket impact.	Amendments necessary to address liability apportionment and complete relief.	Amendments would cause discovery burden and require continuances.	Court found prejudice remediable by continuances; overall amendments granted except Empire Roofing.

Key Cases Cited

Hensgens v. Deere & Co., 833 F.2d 1179 (5th Cir. 1987) (four-factor test for adding non-diverse parties after removal)
Tillman v. CSX Transp., Inc., 929 F.2d 1023 (5th Cir. 1991) (discretion to permit or deny joinder after removal)
S & W Enters., L.L.C. v. SouthTrust Bank of Ala., NA, 315 F.3d 533 (5th Cir. 2003) (good-cacuse scheduling factors for Rule 16)
Stripling v. Jordan Prod. Co., 234 F.3d 863 (5th Cir. 2000) (12(b)(6) standard applied to futility of amendments; pleading standards evolution)
J.M.K. 6, Inc. v. Gregg & Gregg, P.C., 192 S.W.3d 201 (Tex. App. 2006) (responsible third party schemes and comparative fault)
Dukes v. Philip Johnson/Alan Ritchie Architects, P.C., 252 S.W.3d 586 (Tex. App. 2008) (duty and control over premises as a factual issue)
Clayton W. Williams, Jr., Inc. v. Olivo, 952 S.W.2d 523 (Tex. 1997) (duty and control as elements of premises liability)
O’Connor v. Auto. Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn., 846 F. Supp. 39 (E.D. Tex. 1994) (factors for prejudice and continuation in Rule 16 context)