Beg v. Elias Properties Valley Stream 500 Sunrise, LLC
2:16-cv-03807
E.D.N.YMay 5, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Mohammad Y. Beg (New York resident) slipped on snow/ice in a Target-leased parking lot on March 21, 2015 and alleges serious injuries (including a fractured left femoral shaft).
- Target (Minnesota corporation) removed the state-court negligence/contract complaint to federal court asserting complete diversity; Elias (property owner) is a New York corporation.
- Target had sued its snow-removal contractor Ferrandino & Son, Inc. (F&S) and subcontractor Tarr’s Snow Removal, LLC (both New York entities) as third-party defendants in federal court; Plaintiff then moved to join F&S and Tarr’s as direct defendants under Rule 20 and to remand to state court.
- Tarr’s did not oppose joinder/remand; F&S opposed joinder but not remand. Plaintiff moved to join roughly two months after removal; he learned the contractors’ identities through Target’s third-party complaint.
- The district court evaluated permissive joinder under Rule 20, the futility/12(b)(6) standard, Espinal’s third-party duty framework for snow-removal cases, and the §1447(e) remand discretion/fairness factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiff may join F&S and Tarr’s as defendants under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 | Join contractors because claims arise from same occurrence (slip on snow/ice) and negligence questions are common | Joinder is futile because contractors owed no duty to plaintiff and claims fail as a matter of law | Granted: joinder permitted; claims plausibly plead under Espinal prong that contractors displaced owner/lessee duty |
| Whether joinder is futile under Rule 12(b)(6) standards | Alleged duty, breach (left snow/ice), and causation state plausible negligence claims | Contractors argue pleading fails to show duty or displacement of premises-owner duty | Court: Plaintiff pleaded sufficient facts to survive futility review; factual disputes (contracts, course of performance) inappropriate to resolve now |
| Whether joinder comports with §1447(e) fairness factors and requires remand | Joinder was timely after removal; no prejudice; judicial economy supports remand; motive genuine | Target/F&S argued delay or futility justify denying joinder | Court: Factors favor joinder and remand; joinder destroys diversity and court remanded case to state court |
Key Cases Cited
- Espinal v. Melville Snow Contractors, Inc., 98 N.Y.2d 136 (N.Y. 2002) (identifies circumstances where a contracting party may owe a duty to third parties in snow-removal contexts)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard for complaints)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (clarifies that courts need not accept legal conclusions; Twombly-Iqbal pleading framework)
- Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2009) (discusses the Twombly/Iqbal pleading principles)
- Brass v. American Film Technologies, Inc., 987 F.2d 142 (2d Cir. 1993) (limits documents considered on 12(b)(6) to those incorporated by reference or in plaintiff’s possession)