Robert Ellingsworth v. Vermeer Manufacturing Company, 949 F.3d 1097

In Feb. 2014 Robert Ellingsworth was seriously injured when a winch line attached to a Vermeer wood chipper was drawn into the machine and shot back out.
Ellingsworth sued Vermeer in Missouri state court for products liability and failure-to-warn (strict liability and negligence); he also sued his supervisor, Dwayne Marshall.
Vermeer (an Iowa citizen) removed to federal court. The district court denied remand, finding Marshall fraudulently joined; Ellingsworth then voluntarily dismissed Marshall.
Discovery showed the winch was an after‑market attachment, apparently assembled by a third party (possibly a now‑defunct Vermeer dealership in Oklahoma). Ellingsworth added, then dismissed, Vermeer Oklahoma as a defendant.
Ellingsworth moved to amend to add an agency‑liability claim against Vermeer to reach the dealer; the district court denied the late amendment for lack of “good cause.”
The district court granted summary judgment to Vermeer because Vermeer did not manufacture or sell the winch; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Remand / fraudulent joinder	Remand required because nondiverse Marshall destroyed complete diversity	Marshall was fraudulently joined; after his dismissal, diversity existed; Caterpillar doctrine applies	Denial of remand sustained; even if error, dismissal of Marshall meant federal jurisdiction existed at entry of judgment under Caterpillar
Leave to amend (agency claim)	Late amendment necessary to allege Vermeer was liable as principal for dealer actions	No new facts; amendment was strategic and untimely; would reopen discovery; no good cause under Rule 16	Denied for lack of good cause; abuse of discretion not shown
Summary judgment on products liability / failure to warn	Winch was constructed from mostly Vermeer parts and thus Vermeer liable for the winch	Vermeer did not manufacture or sell the winch; Missouri law requires manufacturer/seller status for these claims	Affirmed summary judgment for Vermeer: plaintiff failed to show Vermeer manufactured or sold the winch, an essential element under Missouri law

Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61 (1996) (federal adjudication need not be vacated if jurisdictional requirements are met when judgment is entered)
Buffets, Inc. v. Leischow, 732 F.3d 889 (8th Cir. 2013) (Caterpillar applies categorically; no case‑by‑case time inquiry)
Junk v. Terminix Int’l Co., 628 F.3d 439 (8th Cir. 2010) (Caterpillar applied in summary judgment context)
Sherman v. Winco Fireworks, Inc., 532 F.3d 709 (8th Cir. 2008) (Rule 16(b) good‑cause standard for post‑deadline amendments)
Harris v. FedEx Nat’l LTL, Inc., 760 F.3d 780 (8th Cir. 2014) (abuse‑of‑discretion review of denial of leave to amend)
Albright v. Mountain Home Sch. Dist., 926 F.3d 942 (8th Cir. 2019) (diligence is primary measure of good cause)
Hartis v. Chi. Title Ins. Co., 694 F.3d 935 (8th Cir. 2012) (examples of circumstances showing good cause)
Johnson v. Auto Handling Corp., 523 S.W.3d 452 (Mo. banc 2017) (Missouri negligent products‑liability and failure‑to‑warn elements)
Moore v. Ford Motor Co., 332 S.W.3d 749 (Mo. banc 2011) (Missouri strict liability failure‑to‑warn requires manufacture/sale)
Strong v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 261 S.W.3d 493 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007) (Missouri strict products‑liability principles)