Loewenthal v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

Background

Cholena Loewenthal filed a complaint in Monterey County Superior Court against Union Pacific Railroad Company and unidentified defendants. She alleged negligence and premises liability arising from a February 9, 2021 incident in which she was struck by a Union Pacific train in Salinas, California. The opinion states that she suffered catastrophic injuries, including the loss of her left arm, left leg, and right hand.

Union Pacific answered and removed the case to federal court. Loewenthal later moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e) to amend her complaint by replacing two unidentified defendants with train engineer Donald Chakerian and conductor Darin Jessup. She also asked the court to remand, meaning return, the action to state court because adding the individual defendants would destroy diversity jurisdiction. Union Pacific opposed both requests.

Court’s analysis

Section 1447(e) allows a federal court, after removal, either to deny the addition of defendants whose joinder would destroy subject-matter jurisdiction or to permit their addition and remand the action to state court. The court considered six factors: whether the defendants were needed for a fair resolution, whether the statute of limitations would prevent a new state-court action, whether Loewenthal delayed, whether her purpose was solely to defeat federal jurisdiction, whether her claims appeared valid, and whether denying joinder would prejudice her.

The court agreed with Union Pacific that Chakerian and Jessup were not necessary parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 because Loewenthal could obtain complete relief from Union Pacific and their absence would not create inconsistent obligations. But the court stated that the standard under Section 1447(e) is less restrictive than the Rule 19 standard. It found that adding the individual defendants would avoid separate and redundant lawsuits and that Union Pacific’s potential obligation to indemnify its employees did not give those employees immunity from suit.

The court found that the unexpired statute of limitations weighed against amendment. It found that Loewenthal acted promptly after Union Pacific identified the engineer and conductor in its initial disclosures. The court also found that defeating federal jurisdiction appeared to be one of Loewenthal’s motivations, but not her only motivation. The proposed negligence claims appeared facially valid because Loewenthal alleged that Chakerian and Jessup, as the train’s engineer and conductor, acted negligently. Finally, the court found that denying amendment could prejudice Loewenthal by forcing her to pursue related claims in two different forums.

Disposition

The court exercised its discretion to permit the amendment. It GRANTED Loewenthal’s motion to amend the complaint and remand the action to state court, and ordered that the action be REMANDED to the state court from which it was removed. Judge Beth Labson Freeman signed the order.