Kim v. FedEx Corporation
- George Daniels
- 1:20-cv-07337
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Kim v. FedEx Corporation, Judge Daniels granted FedEx’s dismissal motion because the accident driver was necessary but could not be added.
David Z. Kim and Ae Ja Kim’s federal claims against FedEx Corporation were dismissed because the accident driver was a required party who could not be joined without defeating diversity jurisdiction. The opinion states that the plaintiffs could pursue the matter in their existing Bronx County Supreme Court case by adding FedEx there.
What happened
In Kim v. FedEx Corporation, David Z. Kim and Ae Ja Kim sought damages from FedEx Corporation for an automobile accident. They alleged that a FedEx-owned vehicle, driven by a FedEx employee, collided with their vehicle. Their claims included negligence, negligent entrustment, and loss of consortium.
FedEx argued that the driver had to be included because FedEx’s responsibility depended on whether the driver was negligent. The driver was already being sued by the plaintiffs in a separate case in Bronx County Supreme Court, but could not be added to this federal case without defeating the court’s diversity jurisdiction. The court agreed that the driver was necessary and indispensable because deciding the case without the driver could affect the driver’s interests and create inconsistent results.
Judge George B. Daniels granted FedEx’s motion under the federal rules governing required parties and dismissed the complaint. The court said the plaintiffs had an adequate remedy because they could add FedEx to their existing state-court case.
The detailed version
- Kim v. FedEx Corporation · No. 1:20-cv-07337
- George Daniels
- Feb. 22, 2021
Background
David Z. Kim and Ae Ja Kim brought this federal action against FedEx Corporation seeking compensatory damages for a September 12, 2019 automobile accident. They alleged that FedEx owned a vehicle operated by one of its employees and that the vehicle collided with their vehicle at or near Valentine Avenue and East 187th Street in the Bronx. The complaint asserted negligence, negligent entrustment, and loss of consortium claims.
The plaintiffs had separately sued the vehicle’s driver in a case pending in Bronx County Supreme Court. The driver was not a party to the federal case. FedEx moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(7), which addresses failure to join a party required under Rule 19.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that Rule 19 requires a court first to decide whether an absent person is a necessary party and then, if that person cannot feasibly be joined, whether the case should proceed without that person or be dismissed.
The court determined that the driver was a necessary party. New York law makes a vehicle owner responsible for the negligence of a person operating the vehicle with the owner’s express or implied consent. Therefore, deciding FedEx’s liability would require determining whether the driver was negligent. Deciding that issue without the driver could impair the driver’s ability to protect the driver’s interests. The separate state-court action also created a substantial risk of duplicative litigation and inconsistent obligations.
The court further determined that the driver could not be joined because doing so would destroy the complete diversity of citizenship supporting federal jurisdiction. The opinion states that the plaintiffs and the driver were residents of New York, while FedEx was registered in Delaware and had its principal place of business in Tennessee.
The court concluded that the driver was indispensable under Rule 19(b). It found a significant interest in avoiding duplicative litigation and inconsistent results, and it found that the plaintiffs would have an adequate remedy if the federal case were dismissed because they could add FedEx to their existing state-court action.
Disposition
The court granted FedEx’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint. It directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion. The court did not decide whether the driver or FedEx was liable for the accident.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.