Rivera v. Red Robin
- James Oetken
- 1:19-cv-09558
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Rivera v. Red Robin, Judge Oetken denied Rivera’s motion to add a defendant because it would destroy diversity jurisdiction.
Luis Rivera’s request to add Fatima Z. Niass was denied; the opinion also concerns the existing defendants Red Robin and Red Robin International, Inc.
What happened
Luis Rivera sued Red Robin and Red Robin International, Inc. after alleging that he was injured in a slip-and-fall at a restaurant. After the case was moved from New York state court to federal court, Rivera asked to add Fatima Z. Niass as a defendant.
Adding Niass would destroy the court’s diversity jurisdiction and require sending the case back to state court. Red Robin did not dispute that the proposed joinder otherwise met the applicable rule, but the court considered whether Rivera’s reason for adding Niass was proper.
Judge J. Paul Oetken ruled that Rivera appeared to be seeking joinder mainly to defeat federal jurisdiction because Red Robin could be held responsible for Niass’s alleged conduct. The court denied Rivera’s motion to amend the complaint.
The detailed version
- Rivera v. Red Robin · No. 1:19-cv-09558
- James Oetken
- Apr. 2, 2020
Background
Luis Rivera alleged that he suffered injuries on January 22, 2019, after slipping and falling at a restaurant operated by Red Robin and Red Robin International, Inc. Rivera initially filed the case in New York Supreme Court, Bronx County. The defendants removed it to federal court on October 16, 2019.
Rivera moved to amend his complaint to add Fatima Z. Niass as a defendant. The opinion states that adding Niass would destroy diversity jurisdiction, which is a basis for federal jurisdiction involving parties connected to different states, and would require the case to return to state court.
Court’s Analysis
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e), a federal district court may deny a plaintiff’s request to add a defendant whose addition would eliminate subject-matter jurisdiction, or may allow the addition and send the case to state court. The court first considers whether the proposed joinder is proper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20, then weighs fairness and the need to protect diversity jurisdiction from manipulation.
Red Robin did not contest that joinder would be proper under Rule 20. The court therefore focused on the fairness factors: delay and its reason, prejudice to the defendant, the possibility of multiple lawsuits, and the plaintiff’s motivation.
The court found Rivera’s motivation decisive. Rivera said he wanted Niass added so that the people specifically responsible for the alleged negligence would be included. But the court explained that under respondeat superior—a rule that can make an employer responsible for an employee’s conduct—Niass’s acts could be attributed to Red Robin. The court concluded that Rivera could obtain full relief from Red Robin without adding Niass and that the request appeared aimed solely at defeating diversity jurisdiction.
Ruling
Judge J. Paul Oetken denied Rivera’s motion for leave to amend. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at Docket Numbers 13 and 14. The opinion does not decide whether Rivera will ultimately prevail on his slip-and-fall claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.