Hollins v. Walmart, Inc., 2:24-cv-02045

Hollins sued Walmart after being struck by cases of water at a Walmart store on October 21, 2022.
Hollins moved to amend her complaint to add employee DeLaquan Willis and store manager Amber Haines as individual defendants; Walmart opposed, arguing their joinder (both Nevada residents) would destroy diversity jurisdiction.
The magistrate judge analyzed the motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e), finding that joinder was permissible and that denying joinder would prejudice Hollins because the statute of limitations likely has run on claims against the individuals.
The court found Hollins had pled Doe defendants, showed a connection between the Doe descriptions and the events, and exercised reasonable diligence in identifying the individuals—so relation-back appeared facially satisfied under Nevada law.
Because adding Willis and Haines destroys complete diversity (the only basis for federal jurisdiction), the magistrate recommended permitting joinder and remanding the case to state court.
The district judge adopted the Report and Recommendation in full, granted the motion to amend, directed the amended complaint to be docketed, remanded the case to Nevada state court, and closed the federal file.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Governing standard for post-removal joinder that would destroy diversity	§1447(e) or Rule 15(a) should allow amendment; leave to amend is liberal	Joinder should be denied to preserve federal jurisdiction; Rule 15 futility arguments	Court: §1447(e) governs; analyze under that statute (Ninth Circuit precedent)
Whether joinder should be permitted under §1447(e)	Joinder should be allowed because Hollins will be prejudiced (SOL run), claims are intertwined, and she acted with diligence	Walmart: joinder prejudices defendants and destroys diversity; conclusory assertion of prejudice	Court: Granted joinder—prejudice to Hollins, equities favor amendment, injustice would result if denied
Relation back of added defendants to avoid SOL bar	Amendment relates back: Doe pleading, connection alleged, reasonable diligence	Walmart: Not a "mistake" of identity and undue delay; argues relation-back fails	Court: Facial showing met under Nevada’s Nurenberger test; relation back determination left to state court but not facially barred
Remedy/effect of permitted joinder	Allow amendment and proceed in federal court	Preserve federal forum by denying joinder	Court: Because joinder destroys diversity, the court permitted joinder and remanded to state court under §1447(e)

Newcombe v. Adolf Coors Co., 157 F.3d 686 (9th Cir. 1998) (§1447(e) grants district courts discretion to deny or permit joinder that destroys diversity; court should balance prejudice and equities)
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
Butler v. Nat'l Cmty. Renaissance of Cal., 766 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 2014) (relation-back analysis must consider both federal and state law and apply the more permissive standard)
Nurenberger Hercules-Werke GMBH v. Virostek, 107 Nev. 873, 822 P.2d 1100 (1991) (Nevada three-part test for relation back of Doe defendants)
Stevens v. Brink's Home Sec., Inc., 378 F.3d 944 (9th Cir. 2004) (joinder of nondiverse defendant after removal requires remand)
Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2001) (once joinder of nondiverse parties is permitted, district court must remand)
Yniques v. Cabral, 985 F.2d 1031 (9th Cir. 1993) (section 1447(e) allows remand after joinder of nondiverse defendant)
United States v. Corinthian Colls., 655 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2011) (Rule 15’s leave-to-amend standard is liberal)
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (futility is a ground for denying leave to amend)