Burrell-Hamilton v. Oden

Background

This personal-injury case arose from a January 6, 2016 collision between two vehicles in the Bronx. The complaint alleges that Nadine N. Burrell-Hamilton drove one vehicle and Kelvin Trevensky Lee was a passenger. It alleges that Isaiah Alcario Oden drove the other vehicle with the knowledge, permission, and consent of CR England Inc., and that Oden’s negligence caused the collision and the plaintiffs’ serious injuries.

The defendants removed the case from state court based on diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiffs previously moved to return the case to state court, but the court denied that motion in a February 12, 2018 order.

Lee’s Motion

After discovery had closed, Lee moved under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) and 20(a) for permission to amend the complaint. He sought to assert unspecified claims against Burrell-Hamilton, his co-plaintiff, and to name her as a “Third-Party Defendant.” Lee relied on an accident-reconstruction expert report that the plaintiffs received on November 23, 2018. According to Lee, the report concluded that Burrell-Hamilton’s negligence caused the accident and revealed a potential conflict between the plaintiffs. Lee and Burrell-Hamilton therefore retained separate counsel.

Lee argued that the amendment should be allowed and that the case should then be returned to state court because adding Burrell-Hamilton would destroy diversity jurisdiction. The defendants argued that Rule 14(b) governed Lee’s attempt to bring in a third party and that Rule 14(b) permits a plaintiff to do so only when a counterclaim has been asserted against that plaintiff. No counterclaim had been asserted against Lee.

Court’s Analysis

The court first held that the motion had to be denied because Lee did not submit a proposed amended complaint. The court explained that a request to amend pleadings is difficult to evaluate without the proposed pleading and that a complete copy must accompany the motion so the court and opposing parties can understand the exact requested changes.

The court also explained that, because Burrell-Hamilton was already a co-plaintiff, any claim by Lee against her would proceed as a cross-claim under Rule 13(g). A cross-claim is a claim by one party against a co-party arising from the same transaction or occurrence involved in the original action, or relating to property involved in the action.

The court concluded that third-party procedure did not apply. Rule 14(b) allows a plaintiff to bring in a third party only when a claim has been asserted against that plaintiff and the rule would permit a defendant to bring in the third party. Because no counterclaim had been asserted against Lee, he had no right to name Burrell-Hamilton or anyone else as a third-party defendant.

The court further stated that a properly asserted cross-claim against Burrell-Hamilton would not defeat diversity jurisdiction. The court said that federal courts have supplemental jurisdiction over cross-claims between non-diverse co-parties under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Thus, the court rejected Lee’s apparent effort to use the addition of a co-plaintiff as a way to destroy diversity jurisdiction.

Disposition

Judge Paul G. Gardephe denied Lee’s motion to amend without prejudice. The order allowed Lee to file a new motion for leave to amend by March 30, 2020, and required any new motion to include the proposed amended complaint as an exhibit. The order did not decide the merits of any potential claim by Lee against Burrell-Hamilton.