COTTINGHAM v. TUTOR PERINI BUILDING CORP.
2:14-cv-02793
| E.D. Pa. | Oct 19, 2015Background
- Plaintiff Cory Cottingham was injured at a Philadelphia construction site on July 10, 2013 and sued in Pennsylvania state court in December 2013; Keating Building Corporation was initially named and served within days.
- Plaintiff later stipulated to substitute Tutor Perini Building Corp. (TPBC) for Keating; TPBC removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.
- During discovery plaintiff learned facts suggesting Keating supervised site safety (supervisor and safety director connections, employees wearing Keating insignia, an on-site office called “Keating’s office”).
- Plaintiff moved for leave to amend to add Keating as a defendant (after the limitations period) and to remand the case to state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e).
- TPBC argued contractual documents, safety plans, and incident reports identify TPBC as construction manager and that adding Keating now would prejudice TPBC; TPBC also disputed the corporate identity issues raised about Keating.
- The Court granted leave to amend (finding Rule 15(c) relation back satisfied and no undue prejudice) but denied remand, holding removal was proper at the time it was filed and post-removal joinder of a forum defendant does not destroy jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether amendment to add Keating relates back under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(C) so claims are timely | Cottingham: claims arise from same occurrence; Keating had notice (was originally named and served) and would not be prejudiced | TPBC: late addition prejudices defendant; corporate name/structure changes complicate claims | Granted: relation back satisfied; leave to amend granted (no undue delay or prejudice) |
| Whether joinder of Keating after removal requires remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e) / forum-defendant rule | Cottingham: adding Keating (a Pennsylvania citizen) should destroy diversity and require remand | TPBC: removal was proper when filed; forum-defendant rule applies at time of removal; post-removal joinder doesn’t mandate remand | Denied: remand denied because removal was proper at time of removal and subsequent joinder does not divest court of jurisdiction |
| Whether plaintiff engaged in improper gamesmanship by substituting TPBC then seeking to add Keating | Cottingham: amendments driven by discovery revealing Keating’s role | TPBC: accuses plaintiff of procedural gamesmanship to secure remand | Court: found plaintiff’s delay not undue and did not find sufficient prejudice or bad faith to deny amendment |
| Whether corporate identity/name changes of Keating defeat joinder | Cottingham: name change was inconsequential; can add Keating | TPBC: argues name/structure changes and subsidiary relationships complicate joinder and citizenship analysis | Court: did not decide identity merits now; permitted joinder under Rule 15 for relation-back purposes; left substantive corporate/citizenship issues open |
Key Cases Cited
- Garvin v. City of Phila., 354 F.3d 215 (3d Cir.) (relation-back treats amended complaint as filed on original complaint date)
- Glover v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 698 F.3d 139 (3d Cir.) (Rule 15 balances statute of limitations interests and preference for resolving disputes on merits)
- Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A., 560 U.S. 538 (U.S. 2010) (standard for relation back under Rule 15(c))
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (U.S.) (leave to amend is within district court discretion; Rule 15(a) liberally applied)
- Spencer v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the N. Dist. of Cal., 393 F.3d 867 (9th Cir.) (post-removal joinder of forum defendant does not require remand if removal was proper when filed)
- Korea Exch. Bank v. Trackwise Sales Corp., 66 F.3d 46 (3d Cir.) (irregularities in removal are jurisdictional only if case could not have been filed in federal court initially)
- Coventry v. U.S. Steel Corp., 856 F.2d 514 (3d Cir.) (court must weigh prejudice and reasons for delay when denying leave to amend)