Trejo v. Safeway Insurance Group, 1:14-cv-00913

Plaintiff Trejo filed a putative class action in New Mexico state court alleging insurer Safeway and individual adjusters violated the New Mexico uninsured/underinsured motorist statute and asserting bad‑faith, unfair practices, negligence, and breach of contract claims.
Defendants removed to federal court on diversity grounds, alleging complete diversity and that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
After removal, Trejo sought leave to amend her complaint to add a negligence claim against her insurance agent, Dale Bro (a New Mexico citizen), which would destroy complete diversity, and moved to remand.
Defendants opposed joinder of Bro and moved to file a Second Amended Notice of Removal: (1) to add affidavits confirming two defendants are Arizona citizens (to support diversity), and (2) to assert CAFA jurisdiction as an alternate basis.
The court denied Trejo’s motion to amend/join Bro (finding Bro not indispensable and concluding the amendment was sought to defeat diversity), granted leave for defendants to amend their notice to supplement diversity facts (affidavits), and denied their request to add CAFA as a new basis for jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Trejo may amend to add Dale Bro (joinder)	Trejo: Bro is necessary/indispensable; absent him complete relief may be impossible and joinder preserves claims	Defendants: Bro is neither required nor indispensable; joinder would be used to destroy diversity	Denied: Bro is not indispensable; amendment appears motivated to defeat diversity, so joinder not permitted
Whether Bro is a required/indispensable party under Rule 19	Trejo: Rule 19(a)(1)(A) — cannot accord complete relief without Bro	Defendants: Rule 19 focuses on relief among existing parties; Plaintiff’s arguments are speculative	Held: Bro not required under Rule 19(a); thus not indispensable under Rule 19(b)
Whether defendants may amend notice to add affidavits confirming citizenship (clarify diversity)	Trejo: Challenges defendants’ citizenship assertions; opposes supplementation to bolster removal	Defendants: May supplement to cure defective jurisdictional allegations under 28 U.S.C. § 1653	Granted in part: Court permits amendment to supply affidavits and other facts supporting diversity jurisdiction
Whether defendants may amend to assert CAFA jurisdiction after initial removal on diversity grounds	Trejo: Opposes new basis; argues CAFA amount not met and new basis untimely	Defendants: Seek leave to assert CAFA as alternate federal basis	Denied: Court will not allow defendants to assert an entirely new basis for jurisdiction not in the original notice of removal

Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61 (diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity)
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (standards for leave to amend pleadings)
Pallottino v. City of Rio Rancho, 31 F.3d 1023 (10th Cir. 1994) (leave to amend is within court’s discretion)
McPhail v. Deere & Co., 529 F.3d 947 (10th Cir. 2008) (Rule 19 analysis for joinder and indispensability)
Salt Lake Tribune Pub. Co. v. AT&T Corp., 320 F.3d 1081 (10th Cir. 2003) (Rule 19 required/indispensable party framework)
Sac & Fox Nation of Mo. v. Norton, 240 F.3d 1250 (10th Cir. 2001) (definition of complete relief under Rule 19)
State Distrib., Inc. v. Glenmore Distilleries Co., 738 F.2d 405 (10th Cir. 1984) (denying amendment where facts were known at filing)
Pritchell v. Office Depot, Inc., 420 F.3d 1090 (10th Cir. 2005) (removal statutes construed narrowly)