Cooley v. Y R C Inc
5:20-cv-00106
W.D. La.Jun 8, 2020Background
- A YRC tractor-trailer at a Shreveport loading dock rolled forward after allegedly jumping a chock; Earnest Cooley (a forklift operator) fell ~4 feet and sustained serious injuries.
- Cooley sued YRC and its insurer, Old Republic, in Louisiana state court naming the truck driver as an "unknown" employee; defendants removed to federal court on diversity grounds.
- During discovery/initial disclosures defendants identified the driver as Gerald Schildt, a Louisiana resident; Cooley moved to amend to add Schildt as a defendant, which would destroy diversity and require remand.
- Defendants opposed amendment; later they asserted Schildt acted within the scope of employment, but the court noted that concession is a judicial admission and does not eliminate possible personal liability under Louisiana law.
- Applying the Hensgens factors, the magistrate judge found Cooley was not dilatory, had legitimate reasons (discovery and practical litigation reasons) to add Schildt, and would be prejudiced if amendment were denied; therefore recommended granting leave to amend and remanding the case to state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to allow joinder of a non-diverse defendant post-removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e) | Cooley sought to name the actual driver (Schildt) once identified; not dilatory; driver may be personally liable and is needed for efficient litigation and discovery | Defendants argued addition would only destroy diversity and that YRC admits vicarious liability so adding Schildt is unnecessary and intended to defeat federal jurisdiction | Leave to amend granted; Hensgens factors favor joinder and remand |
| Whether plaintiff’s motive was to defeat federal jurisdiction | Cooley asserted he always intended to sue the driver and only learned Schildt’s identity via disclosures; naming the driver is common and has practical benefits | Defendants argued the amendment is meretricious and aimed at destroying diversity after removal | Court found little evidence motive was improper; factor favors amendment |
| Whether plaintiff was dilatory in seeking amendment | Cooley promptly pursued identity in interrogatories, informal requests, and moved soon after disclosures | Defendants pointed to timing after removal | Court found no dilatory conduct by Cooley |
| Whether plaintiff would be significantly prejudiced if amendment denied | Cooley would face parallel state suit against Schildt, duplicated discovery, risk of inconsistent verdicts, and loss of procedural tools to secure the driver’s participation | Defendants said employer/insurer can satisfy judgment and addition unnecessary | Court found plausible prejudice and procedural disadvantages if amendment denied; factor favors amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- Hensgens v. Deere & Co., 833 F.2d 1179 (5th Cir. 1987) (framework for evaluating post-removal joinder that destroys diversity)
- Hawthorne Land Co. v. Occidental Chem. Corp., 431 F.3d 221 (5th Cir. 2005) (discussing Hensgens factors)
- Ford v. Elsbury, 32 F.3d 931 (5th Cir. 1994) (employee may be held personally liable despite employer liability under Louisiana law)
- Canter v. Koehring Co., 283 So.2d 716 (La. 1973) (test for imposing individual liability under Louisiana law)
- Sims v. Jefferson Downs Racing Ass'n, Inc., 778 F.2d 1068 (5th Cir. 1985) (plaintiff may sue both corporate defendant and individual employee)
- Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (procedural rule on objections to magistrate judge recommendations)