Liverpool v. Caesars Baltimore Management Company, LLC
1:21-cv-00510
| D. Maryland | Dec 14, 2021Background
- On April 22, 2018, Liverpool alleges casino security at Horseshoe Casino Baltimore assaulted, restrained, and detained him and later issued a permanent eviction; he asserts multiple torts including battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, negligence, and seeks substantial compensatory and punitive damages.
- Liverpool sued in Maryland state court on September 10, 2020 against Caesars Baltimore Management Co. (CBMC), other corporate entities, and three John Doe security personnel.
- CBMC removed the case to federal court on February 26, 2021; the court later dismissed the other corporate defendants and, on July 22, 2021, denied Liverpool’s initial motion to remand.
- Liverpool later discovered the John Does are Maryland residents and moved to amend (Rule 15) to name five Maryland-resident individuals (three formerly John Does plus two newly identified guards) and also filed a Rule 60(b) motion seeking relief from the July 22 remand denial.
- The court ordered Liverpool to seek leave to amend under Rule 15, considered the Mayes factors governing post-removal joinder of non-diverse defendants under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e), granted leave to amend, denied the Rule 60(b) motion, and remanded the case to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Liverpool may join non-diverse individual defendants post-removal (28 U.S.C. § 1447(e) / Fed. R. Civ. P. 15) | Leave to amend should be freely given; the named individuals are properly part of the suit and Liverpool has viable claims against them | Joinder is timed to defeat diversity; Rule 7(b) deficiency; amendment would force remand and prejudice CBMC | Court granted leave to amend under §1447(e) after balancing Mayes factors and remanded the case to state court |
| Whether Rule 60(b) relief should be granted to vacate the July 22, 2021 order denying remand | Newly discovered citizenship of John Does justifies relief from the prior order | Rule 60(b) is an improper vehicle and relief is unwarranted | Denied: court treated Rule 60(b) motion as improper and unnecessary because joinder/remand resolved jurisdictional issue |
| Whether the joinder is fraudulent (i.e., Plaintiffs lack a colorable claim against the individuals) | Liverpool alleges specific, non-conclusory facts that support claims against the individual guards | CBMC argues claims are futile and may be barred by defenses (e.g., statutes of limitation, special police authority) | Court concluded allegations are facially colorable; fraudulent joinder not shown |
| Whether plaintiff’s delay in identifying and moving to join the individuals bars amendment | Delay caused by lack of discovery, MPIA request, inability to access premises, and chaotic nature of incident | Plaintiff waited years and could have discovered identities earlier; delay suggests tactic to defeat jurisdiction | Delay weighed against Liverpool but was not dispositive; equities favored joinder and remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Mayes v. Rapoport, 198 F.3d 457 (4th Cir. 1999) (district court has discretion under §1447(e) to permit joinder of non-diverse defendants and remand; factors to guide decision)
- Cent. W. Va. Energy Co. v. Mountain State Carbon, LLC, 636 F.3d 101 (4th Cir. 2011) (complete diversity requirement among parties)
- Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61 (U.S. 1996) (requirements for diversity jurisdiction)
- Doleac ex rel. Doleac v. Michalson, 264 F.3d 470 (5th Cir. 2001) (post-removal joinder of non-diverse defendants defeats diversity jurisdiction)
- Casas Off. Machs., Inc. v. Mita Copystar Am., Inc., 42 F.3d 668 (1st Cir. 1994) (replacement of fictitious defendants with non-diverse named defendants defeats diversity)
- Hartley v. CSX Transp., Inc., 187 F.3d 422 (4th Cir. 1999) (standard for fraudulent joinder: defendant bears heavy burden; slight possibility of relief precludes finding of fraudulent joinder)
- Dobbs v. JBC of Norfolk, Va., Inc., 544 F. Supp. 2d 496 (E.D. Va. 2008) (similar facts; permitted joinder of non-diverse individuals after removal where identities were discovered through limited means and joinder avoided parallel litigation)