Lewis Edward Waldeisen v. BLC Mirage Inn L.P.

1 J S - 6 [7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] Case No. 5:24-cv-00107-SSS-SHKx 11 LEWIS EDWARD WALDEISEN, et al. 12 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 Plaintiff, MOTION TO REMAND [DKT. 15] [14] v. [15] BLC MIRAGE INN L.P., et al. [16] 17 Defendant. 18 Before the Court is Plaintiff Lewis Edward Waldeisen’s motion to 19 remand (the “Motion”) filed on February 1, 2024. [Dkt. 15]. This matter is 20 fully briefed and ripe for review. [Dkt. 18; Dkt. 19]. Having reviewed the 21 Parties’ arguments, relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, the 22 Motion is GRANTED. [Dkt. 15]. 23 I. BACKGROUND 24 This matter arises out of the death of Lewis Waldeisen (the “Decedent”). 25 [Dkt. 14 at 2]. Plaintiff alleges Defendants BLC Mirage Inn LP (“BLC 26 Mirage”) and Brookdale Mirage Inn (“Brookdale”) own and operate a 27 Residential Care Facility for the elderly (the “RCFE”) in Rancho Mirage, 1 Brookdale and BLC Mirage’s RCFE. [Dkt. 15 at 5]. In his original complaint, 2 Plaintiff claimed Defendants withheld adequate care from Decedent and that 3 their negligent and reckless conduct resulted in the death of Decedent. [Dkt. 1-1 4 at 13–19]. 5 Defendants BLC Mirage and Brookdale removed this action alleging 6 diversity jurisdiction on January 17, 2024. [Dkt. 1 at 3]. On February 1, 2024, 7 Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint (the “FAC”), naming Suncrest Home 8 Health Services, Inc. (“Suncrest”) as a Defendant. [Dkt. 14 at 11]. In his FAC, 9 Plaintiff alleges Suncrest operates a home health agency and that Suncrest, 10 along with the other Defendants, was responsible for monitoring and caring for 11 Decedent’s health. [Dkt. 14 at 7]. Upon filing his FAC, Plaintiff filed the 12 pending Motion arguing that remand is necessary because the addition of 13 Suncrest destroys the basis for diversity jurisdiction. [Dkt. 15 at 7]. 14 Relevant to this Motion are the citizenships of each party. Plaintiff is a 15 citizen of California. [Dkt. 14 at 2]. BLC Mirage is a limited partnership 16 incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Wisconsin. 17 [Dkt. 1 at 3]. BLC Mirage is comprised of two partners: (1) BLC Mirage Inn, 18 Inc. which is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in 19 Tennessee, and (2) Brookdale which is a Delaware limited liability company 20 with its principal place of business also in Tennessee. [Dkt. 1 at 3]. 21 Brookdale’s sole member is Brookdale Operations, LLC which was 22 incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Tennessee. Id. 23 Suncrest is a corporation incorporated in California with its principal place of 24 business in California. [Dkt. 15 at 7]. 25 II. LEGAL STANDARD 26 In removed actions, when a plaintiff seeks to add a defendant that would 27 destroy subject matter jurisdiction, the Court may deny joinder, or permit 1 1447(e)”). “Whether to permit joinder of a party that will destroy diversity 2 jurisdiction remains in the sound discretion of the court[.]” IBC Aviation Servs, 3 Inc. v. Compania Mexicana de Aciavion, S.A. de C.V., 125 F. Supp. 2d 1008 , 4 1011 (9th Cir. 2000). 5 In determining whether to allow an amendment that adds a non-diverse 6 defendant, courts consider the following factors: “(1) whether the party sought 7 to be joined is needed for just adjudication and would be joined under Federal 8 Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a); (2) whether the statute of limitations would 9 preclude an original action against the new defendants in state court; (3) 10 whether there has been unexplained delay in requesting joinder; (4) whether 11 joinder is intended solely to defeat federal jurisdiction; (5) whether the claims 12 against the new defendant appear valid; and (6) whether denial of joinder will 13 prejudice the plaintiff.” Id. 14 III. DISCUSSION 15 A. Whether Suncrest is a Necessary Party under Rule 19 16 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 (“Rule 19”), a party must be 17 joined if their “absence would preclude the grant of complete relief, […] impede 18 [the party’s] ability to protect their interests[,] or would subject any of the 19 parties to the danger of inconsistent obligations.” IBC, 125 F. Supp. 2d at 1011 . 20 While courts do consider if a party meets the requirements of Rule 19, 21 amendment under Section 1447(e) is judged under a less restrictive standard 22 than Rule 19. Id. Amendment will be allowed under Section 1447(e) where 23 failure to join a party would lead to separate or redundant actions. Id. 24 Importantly, joint tortfeasors and agents are not necessary parties under Rule 19. 25 Coldani v. Hamm, No. 2:07-cv-0660 JAM EFB, 2008 WL 4104292 , at *2 (E.D. 26 Cal. Sept. 3, 2008). 27 Plaintiff argues Suncrest is a necessary party because, if it is not joined, 1 would be required to maintain two actions. [Dkt. 15 at 9–10]. Defendants 2 argue Suncrest is not a necessary party because Suncrest’s conduct falls outside 3 of the Elder Abuse Act. [Dkt. 18 at 13–14]. 4 Here, for the reasons set forth below, the Court finds Suncrest is not a 5 necessary party, and thus this factor weighs against joinder. As mentioned 6 above, joint tortfeasors are not necessary parties under Rule 19. See Coldani, [7] 2008 WL 4104292 , at *2; see also Exp.-Imp. Bank of Korea v. ASI Corp., No. 8 16-cv-2056-MWF-JPRx, 2016 WL 10788358 , at *3 (C.D. Cal. July 28, 2016). 9 As currently plead, Plaintiff’s FAC treats Suncrest as a joint tortfeasor. [Dkt. 14 10 at 18 (arguing “Defendants” breached their duty of care to Decedent); Id. at 17 11 (arguing same); Id. at 12 (arguing the conduct of all Defendants caused physical 12 and mental harm to Decedent); Dkt. 15 at 9 (arguing the facts within the FAC 13 “implicate” dual responsibility”)]; see also Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Ching, [14] 189 F. Supp. 3d 978, 996 (E.D. Cal. 2016). 15 Thus, because Plaintiff’s FAC treats Suncrest as a joint tortfeasor, 16 Suncrest is not a necessary party. See e.g., Dorfman v. Massachusetts Cas. Ins. 17 Comp., No. 15-cv-06370 MMM (ASx), 2015 WL 7312413 , at *8 (C.D. Cal. 18 Nov. 19, 2015); see also Hinojos v. Rocken P. Outfitters Inc., No. 16-cv-0826819 VAP (PJWx), 2017 WL 10544633 , at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2017) (finding a 20 party a joint tortfeasor where the complaint alleged it was “‘at least partially 21 liable for [p]laintiff’s injuries’”). As such, this factor weighs against joinder. 22 Lauer v. Extendicare Homes, Inc., No. 06-cv-5124FDB, 2006 WL 925137 , at *1 23 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 7, 2006). 24 The Court also notes Plaintiff will not be forced to litigate separate or 25 redundant actions to gain complete relief because Brookdale and BLC Mirage 26 can be held liable for all the damages. See Monster Film Ltd. v. Martinen, No. 27 2:16-cv-01414-ODW, 2017 WL 8220213 , at *3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2017) 1 B. Whether the Statute of Limitations Preclude an Original Action against Suncrest [2] “When a claim is timely filed in state court and then removed, a finding [3] that the statute of limitations would preclude the filing of a new, separate action [4] against a party whose joinder has been denied in the federal proceeding, may [5] warrant remand.” Murphy v. Am. Gen. Life Ins., Comp., 74 F. Supp. 3d 1267 , [6] 1284 (C.D. Cal. 2015). Here, the Parties agree Plaintiff could file a claim [7] against Suncrest in state court. [Dkt. 18 at 15; Dkt. 15 at 10]. As such, this [8] factor weighs against joinder. [Dkt. 15 at 10–11]. See Khachunts v. Gen. Ins. [9] Comp. of Am., No. 2:22-cv-09325-SPG (KSx), 2023 WL 4554103 , at *3 (C.D. [10] Cal. July 14, 2023). [11] C. Whether There has been Unexplained Delay [12] “When determining whether to allow amendment to add a nondiverse [13] party, courts consider whether the amendment was attempted in a timely [14] fashion.” Clinco v. Roberts, 41 F. Supp. 2d 1080, 1083 (C.D. Cal. 1999). Here, [15] Plaintiff amended his complaint 50 days after the initial complaint was filed in [16] state court and 14 days after the action was removed. [Dkt. 15 at 11]. As such, [17] the Court finds Plaintiff attempted to amend his complaint in a timely manner. [18] See Clinco, 41 F. Supp. 2d at 1083 (finding amendment made less than six [19] weeks later to be timely); see also Malijen v. Ford Motor Comp., No. 20-cv20 1217- JGB (KKx), 2020 WL 5934298 , at *3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2020) (finding [21] amendment four months after filing and one month after removal timely). Thus, [22] this factor weighs in favor of allowing joinder. [23] D. Intent of Joinder [24] “[T]he motive of a plaintiff in seeking the joinder of an additional [25] defendant is relevant to a trial court’s decision to grant the plaintiff leave to [26] amend his original complaint.” Desert Empire Bank v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 623 27 F.2d 1371 , 1376 (9th Cir. 1980). Defendants contend Plaintiff’s amendment is 1 intended solely to defeat federal jurisdiction because Plaintiff decided to add 2 Suncrest after Defendant removed the action. [Dkt. 18 at 16]. However, as 3 Plaintiff correctly notes, mere suspicion of an intent to destroy diversity is not as 4 important as it once was now that Section 1447(e) grants courts greater 5 flexibility in allowing amendment. See IBC, 125 F. Supp. 2d at 1012 . Here, the 6 Court finds Plaintiff’s addition of Suncrest is reasonable considering its alleged 7 joint responsibility for the Decedent’s care. As such, the Court finds this factor 8 weighs in favor of joinder. 9 E. Validity of Claims 10 To state a valid claim under Section 1447(e), a plaintiff does not need to 11 allege facts sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. Dordoni v. FCA US LLC, 12 et al., No. 20-1475 JGB (SHKx), 2020 WL 6082132 , at *5 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 13 2020). Rather, a court need only determine if the claim seems valid. Id. 14 (collecting cases). Here, Defendants do not contest the validity of Plaintiffs’ 15 claims against Suncrest. [Dkt. 18 at 17]. As such, this factor weighs in favor of 16 joinder. Taylor v. Honeywell Corp., No. 09-cv-4947-SBA, 2010 WL 1881459 , 17 at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 10, 2010) 18 F. Prejudice to Plaintiff 19 Here, for the same reasons discussed in Section A, the Court finds 20 Plaintiffs would not be prejudiced if joinder is denied. See Sabag v. FCA US, 21 LLC et al., No. 2:19-cv-06639-CAS (RAOx), 2016 WL 6581154 , at *7 (C.D. 22 Cal. Nov. 7, 2016) (finding prejudice where denying joinder would require 23 plaintiff to file duplicative claims). As the Court cannot find Plaintiff would be 24 prejudiced, this factor weighs against joinder. Id. at 6. As such, this factor 25 weighs against joinder. 26 IV. CONCLUSION 27 In sum, the Court finds three of the six factors under Section 1447(e) lean 1 | strong presumption against removal jurisdiction, the Court finds Plaintiff's 2 || joinder of Suncrest was proper. Sabag, 2016 WL 6581154 , at *7; see also Gaus 3 | v. Miles, 980 F2d 564, 568 (9th Cir. 1992).' Thus, the Court ALLOWS 4] Suncrest to be joined in the FAC. 5 Because Suncrest and Plaintiff are both citizens of California, there is no 6 || longer complete diversity in this case. [Dkt. 14 at 2; Dkt. 15 at 7]. As such, the 7 || Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter and GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion. See 8 || 28 U.S.C. 1447(c); [Dkt. 15]. The Clerk is DIRECTED to remand this action 9 || to the Superior Court for the County of Riverside. [10] 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. [12] 13 || DATED: March 28, 2024 14 SUNSHINE □ SYKES United States District Judge [26] QT 28 ' Moreover, the Court declines to dismiss Suncrest from this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21.