Roe v. Mundy Maintenance and Services, LLC
2:12-cv-00348
S.D. Tex.Sep 14, 2012Background
- Plaintiff William Roe filed suit in the Southern District of Texas against Gala Industries, Inc. and thirteen additional defendants.
- Gala admitted subject matter jurisdiction as to the original parties, but joinder of new defendants raised diversity concerns.
- Roe asserted jurisdiction based on diversity at filing and argued non-diverse defendants could be joined under Rule 19 without destroying jurisdiction.
- The added defendants appear non-diverse on their face, creating a potential jurisdictional defect.
- The court held that joining non-diverse parties defeats diversity and may warrant dismissal under Rule 21 to cure the defect.
- The court granted partial dismissal of the non-diverse defendants and took under advisement the citizenship challenge for Mundy Caribe, LLC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether joining non-diverse parties destroys diversity | Roe asserts diversity exists at filing despite later non-diverse joinders | Defendants contend non-diverse joinders defeat diversity | Diversity is defeated; dismissal of non-diverse Defendants granted |
| Whether dismissal under Rule 21 is proper to cure the defect | Plaintiff seeks dismissal of non-diverse defendants to cure jurisdiction | Defendants oppose alternative relief; argue dismissal is proper under Rule 21 | Dismissal of non-diverse Defendants granted to cure defect |
| Whether Mundy Caribe, LLC’s citizenship allegations are sufficient | Plaintiff alleges Mundy Caribe’s citizenship but fails to provide specifics | Mundy Caribe’s citizenship must be proven or pleaded to sustain jurisdiction | Taken Under Advisement; parties ordered to file citizenship evidence by Sept. 20, 2012 |
| Whether the court should take jurisdictional challenge as to Mundy Caribe after amended complaint | Court should resolve jurisdiction now | Await citizenship evidence before ruling | Taken Under Advisement pending citizenship evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Freeport-McMoRan, Inc. v. KN Energy, Inc., 498 U.S. 426 (U.S. 1991) (change-of-status cases; not addressing joinder of non-diverse new parties)
- Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567 (U.S. 2004) (joinder/real party-in-interest; limits of jurisdictional rules)
- Cobb v. Delta Exports, Inc., 186 F.3d 675 (5th Cir. 1999) (joinder of non-diverse parties defeats diversity)
- Doleac v. Michalson, 264 F.3d 470 (5th Cir. 2001) (non-diverse defendants; dismissal under Rule 21 to cure defect)
- Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826 (U.S. 1989) (discusses dismissal to cure jurisdictional defect)