Williams v. AMF Southshore Lanes

Background

Monique Williams brought claims for negligence and premises liability arising from the alleged November 19, 2016 shooting and death of her son, Antwaun Williams, on the premises of AMF Bowling Centers, Inc. Williams filed the action in Alameda County Superior Court on November 16, 2018. After the state court allowed AMF to be added as a defendant, AMF filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Nesctc Security Agency LLC. Williams later amended her complaint to substitute Nesctc for a previously unidentified defendant. The case was removed to federal court on November 16, 2019.

Nesctc then filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Bay Valley Security Inc. Williams sought permission to add Bay Valley Security Inc., Bay Valley Security, LLC, and George Odhiambo as defendants. She alleged that Odhiambo was a part owner, member or manager, and director of Bay Valley Security Inc.

Court’s Analysis

Federal law allows a court, after removal, either to deny adding defendants whose presence would destroy federal subject-matter jurisdiction or to allow the addition and remand the case to state court. Courts consider factors including whether the new defendants are needed for a fair resolution, whether the claims against them appear valid, whether the plaintiff would be harmed by denial, the timing of the request, and whether the request appears improper.

AMF argued primarily that Williams’s motion was untimely. Williams learned about the proposed defendants around November 22, 2019, and told the court on March 30, 2020, that she intended to amend. The court attributed approximately four months of delay to Williams but found no undue delay because the case was still at an early stage, with no dispositive motions or discovery.

The court also found that adding Bay Valley Security Inc. and Bay Valley Security, LLC would destroy diversity jurisdiction even without adding Odhiambo. It found Williams’s allegations about Odhiambo sufficient at that stage to support his inclusion, while expressly making no conclusion about whether Williams would ultimately state a successful claim against him. The court found no indication that the amendment was made for a fraudulent or dilatory purpose. It also concluded that denial could prevent Williams from pursuing all potentially responsible tortfeasors in one action or force her to file a second, redundant state-court case. AMF did not demonstrate that adding the defendants would prejudice it.

Ruling

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted Williams’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint adding Bay Valley Security Inc., Bay Valley Security, LLC, and George Odhiambo as defendants. The court then remanded the case to Alameda County Superior Court because the addition of the defendants destroyed diversity jurisdiction. The clerk was directed to remand the case and close the federal file, and the order terminated Docket Number 18.