Hudson v. Bank of America Corporation, 3:17-cv-01479

Plaintiff Abraham Hudson filed a state-court complaint alleging breach of oral contract, discrimination (race and religion), retaliation, failure to prevent discrimination, constructive discharge, and defamation based on events beginning in October 2015.
Defendants Bank of America Corporation and Merrill Lynch removed the action to federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
Plaintiff moved to amend to substitute a named individual (Mr. Schoenle) for Doe 1 and moved to remand, arguing addition of Schoenle would destroy diversity.
The court reviewed the proposed first amended complaint (which adds Schoenle) and found no prejudice, undue delay, bad faith, or apparent futility in permitting the amendment; leave to amend was granted.
The court then evaluated diversity jurisdiction post-amendment: defendants showed corporate citizenship for BOA and Merrill Lynch, and Schoenle submitted a sworn declaration attesting Nevada domicile; the court accepted these facts.
The court also concluded, on a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 based on claimed lost wages, front pay, emotional distress, attorneys’ fees, and punitive damages; remand was denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether leave to amend to substitute Schoenle for Doe 1 should be granted	Hudson argued amendment was timely, provided proposed complaint, and defendants suffered no prejudice	BOA/Merrill argued procedural noncompliance and that amendment would be futile and intended to destroy diversity	Granted: Court allowed amendment — no bad faith, prejudice, undue delay, or clear futility found
Whether addition of Schoenle destroys complete diversity and requires remand	Hudson argued Schoenle’s citizenship undermines diversity and remand is proper	Defendants argued Schoenle is a Nevada domiciliary and diversity remains; removal was proper at the time filed	Denied: Court found Schoenle’s sworn declaration establishes Nevada domicile and complete diversity exists
Whether amount in controversy meets $75,000 threshold	Hudson contended insufficient evidence that damages exceed $75,000	Defendants presented calculations of past wages, front pay (1–3 years), emotional distress, attorneys’ fees, punitive damages	Held: Amount in controversy satisfied by defendants’ estimates; jurisdictional threshold met
Whether removal was procedurally proper and timely	Hudson moved to remand contemporaneously with motion to amend	Defendants argued remand motion premature and removal was proper when filed	Held: Removal was proper; remand denied because subject-matter jurisdiction exists

Ditto v. McCurdy, 510 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir.) (factors for leave to amend)
Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir.) (prejudice is primary consideration in Rule 15 motions)
Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (Sup. Ct.) (corporate "principal place of business" / nerve center test)
Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir.) (burden to prove amount in controversy by preponderance)
Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241 (9th Cir.) (removal statute strictly construed; doubts resolved in favor of remand)
Galt G/S v. JSS Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir.) (attorneys’ fees may be included in amount in controversy when authorized)
Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365 (Sup. Ct.) (complete diversity requirement)
Sierra Club v. Penfold, 857 F.2d 1307 (9th Cir.) (no prejudice when defendant already in court for same transaction)