Carter v. Target Corporation

Background

Marnie and Stephen Carter asserted claims arising from slip-and-fall accidents at a Target store in Pleasant Hill, California, on September 16, 2018, and January 5, 2019. Their state-court complaint named Target Corporation and Doe defendants. Marnie asserted negligence, willful failure to warn, and dangerous-condition claims. Stephen asserted loss-of-consortium claims. The original complaint did not include facts about either accident or any Doe defendant.

Target was served on November 8, 2021, and removed the case to federal court on December 6, 2021, based on diversity jurisdiction. The Carters later asked for permission to replace a Doe defendant with Kimberly Rose Chatman, whom they said they learned was the store director at the Pleasant Hill Target where the accidents occurred. Target opposed the request, asserting that Chatman was a sham defendant whose addition would improperly defeat diversity jurisdiction. Target also argued that the Carters had not stated a claim against Chatman, that she was unnecessary because Target would be responsible for conduct undertaken in her role, and that the Carters had delayed seeking the amendment.

Legal standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e), when a plaintiff seeks to add a non-diverse defendant after removal, the court may deny the joinder or permit it and remand the case to state court. The court considers factors including whether the new party is needed for a fair resolution, whether a new state-court action would be time-barred, whether the plaintiff delayed without explanation, whether the request is intended only to defeat federal jurisdiction, whether the claims appear valid, and whether denying joinder would harm the plaintiff.

A removing defendant asserting that a proposed non-diverse defendant is a sham must show that there is no possibility the plaintiff could establish a state-law claim against that person. The court noted that the original allegations were more general than those in a prior related proceeding involving a slip-and-fall claim and a store manager. But Target offered no evidence supporting its repeated assertion that Chatman was not the store director and was not an employee at the relevant times. The court therefore concluded that Target had not shown Chatman was a sham defendant.

Ruling

The court found that the factors under Section 1447(e) supported allowing the amendment. It found no evidence establishing when the Carters learned Chatman’s identity or how long they waited afterward, noted that the case was at an early stage, and concluded that the Carters could state a claim against Chatman. The court also found that the Carters had raised the possibility of adding Chatman before removal, so their purpose did not appear to be solely defeating federal jurisdiction. The court found that Target would not be prejudiced.

The court granted the request for leave to amend and remand. Because the Carters had not attached the proposed amended complaint, the court instructed them to file one adding Chatman within 21 days. Upon receiving that complaint, the case will be remanded to Contra Costa Superior Court. The scheduled case-management conference was vacated.