Houston v. Creative Hairdressers, Inc., 3:17-cv-00421

Background

K.M., a minor, allegedly suffered third-degree chemical burns from hair dye applied at a Hair Cuttery salon; mother Dawn Houston sued Hair Cuttery in Florida state court seeking >$500,000 in negligence and initially res ipsa loquitur claims.
Hair Cuttery (Virginia citizen) removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds; plaintiff amended to drop res ipsa and discovery proceeded in federal court.
Parties agreed to extend the deadline for amendments to October 30, 2017 to investigate potential claims against the dye manufacturer(s).
On October 30, 2017 plaintiff moved to (1) substitute the now-adult injured party as plaintiff, (2) add the salon beautician (Florida citizen) as a defendant, (3) add manufacturers L’Oreal USA Products, Inc. and Redken 5th Avenue N.Y.C., LLC, and (4) remand for lack of complete diversity.
The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e) and Hensgens balancing factors for post-removal joinder that would destroy diversity and denied leave to add the beautician (non-diverse) while permitting addition of the manufacturers — but required Redken to disclose all members’ citizenship before determining whether diversity remains intact.
Court allowed substitution of the plaintiff, denied the beautician addition without prejudice, authorized adding the manufacturers (subject to member-citizenship disclosure), and administratively closed the file pending new defendants’ appearance.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether to permit post-removal joinder of a non-diverse beautician under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e)	Plaintiff sought to add the beautician based on the same occurrence; argued delay was not intentional and she needed depositions and to decide on manufacturer claims first	Defendant opposed adding the beautician because joinder would destroy diversity and defendant should retain federal forum	Denied without prejudice under Hensgens balancing; plaintiff knew beautician’s identity before the amendment deadline and was not shown to suffer significant prejudice if joinder denied
Whether addition of manufacturers destroys diversity	Plaintiff proposed adding L’Oreal and Redken; argued manufacturers should be added	Defendant did not oppose adding manufacturers; court noted LLC citizenship rules could affect diversity	Permitted addition of L’Oreal and Redken but required Redken to file statement of each member’s citizenship; remand only if any member is a Florida citizen
Whether plaintiff’s substitution cure defect in allegations of citizenship	Plaintiff amended to allege citizen rather than resident status	Defendant did not contest substitution	Allowed; substitution cured prior pleading deficiency regarding citizenship
Whether remand motion should be granted now	Plaintiff moved to remand if joinder destroyed diversity	Defendant contested	Motion to remand is moot pending Redken’s member-citizenship disclosure; if any member is Florida citizen, case will be remanded

Key Cases Cited

Ingram v. CSX Transp., Inc., 146 F.3d 858 (11th Cir.) (post-removal amendments adding parties that arise from same occurrence constitute joinder governed by § 1447(e))
Hensgens v. Deere & Co., 833 F.2d 1179 (5th Cir.) (sets Hensgens balancing test for permitting post-removal joinder that would destroy diversity)
Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings, L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020 (11th Cir.) (LLC citizenship depends on citizenship of all members)
Triggs v. John Crump Toyota, Inc., 154 F.3d 1284 (11th Cir.) (different standard applies when defendant alleges fraudulent joinder before removal)
Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365 (11th Cir.) (pleading must allege citizenship not residence to establish diversity)