Sleight v. Ford Motor Company, 1:11-cv-00172

Sleight and Robynlee Sleight sue Ford, Rockaway Car Center, Inc., and Whitesides; they seek to amend to add Rusty’s Service LLC as a defendant and to add factual allegations about Whitesides.
On Feb. 12, 2013 the court heard oral argument on the motion to amend and granted the amendment to include Rusty’s, and remanded the case to Utah state court.
On March 29, 2010, Evan Sleight’s Ford Explorer tire tread allegedly separated on I-15, causing a rollover that left Sleight a quadriplegic.
Plaintiffs allege Rusty’s performed safety inspections and maintenance but failed to observe tire-related evidence, potentially causing the vehicle to pass inspection or not warn about tire problems.
Utah’s comparative fault scheme and the absence of diversity prompt the court to analyze indispensability under Rules 19–20 and to remand once Rusty’s is joined, resulting in no subject matter jurisdiction for the amended federal case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Should Rusty’s be joined given non-diversity?	Sleight argues non-joinder harms complete relief and creates risk of inconsistent judgments.	Defendants argue joinder destroys diversity and may be prejudicial or improper.	Yes, Rusty’s is indispensable; joinder requires remand.
Is Rusty’s indispensable under Rule 19 analysis?	Rusty’s is necessary for complete relief and to avoid prejudicial outcomes.	Non-joined Rusty’s could allow separate state actions with potential inconsistency.	Rusty’s indispensable; factors favor joinder.
Is joinder of Rusty’s feasible given jurisdictional constraints?	Joinder defeats diversity and may violate jurisdiction.	Non-diverse joinder is not feasible; remand is required.	Joinder not feasible; remand required.
Should amendment be granted and case remanded after joinder?	Amendment should be granted to add Rusty’s.	Amendment should be limited; jurisdiction concerns persist.	Motion granted to the extent of adding Rusty’s; remand ordered; disregard further allegations against Whitesides.

McPhail v. Deere & Co., 529 F.3d 947 (10th Cir. 2008) (non-diverse party addition triggers remand; incomplete diversity doctrine)
Estate of Alvarez v. Donaldson Co., 213 F.3d 993 (7th Cir. 2000) (nonparties may be necessary when their fault affects relief under comparative fault)
Citizen Potawatomi Nation v. Norton, 248 F.3d 993 (10th Cir. 2001) (three-step indispensability test for missing parties)
Amboy Bancorporation v. Bank Advisory Grp., Inc., 432 F. App’x 102 (3d Cir. 2011) (nonparty necessary under applicable comparative negligence regimes)