Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 4, 2021

Hernandez v. Family Dollar Stores of New York, Inc.

Judge
Katherine Failla
Docket
1:20-cv-07888
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
7
Civil ProcedureTort
In one sentence

In Hernandez v. Family Dollar, Judge Failla directed a response to Hernandez’s request to add defendants and remand her negligence case to state court.

Who this affects

The plaintiff, the existing Family Dollar defendant, and the three entities the plaintiff sought to add—Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., SMS Assist, LLC, and Thermochill HVACR, LLC—were affected by the order requiring a response, but the court did not yet decide whether the new parties would be joined or the case remanded.

What happened

In Hernandez v. Family Dollar Stores of New York, Inc., the plaintiff asked to add Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., SMS Assist, LLC, and Thermochill HVACR, LLC as defendants in her lawsuit over a fall caused by water leaking from a store freezer. She also asked the federal court to send the case back to state court because Thermochill is identified as a New York corporation.

The plaintiff said the proposed defendants were involved in maintaining and repairing the freezer and that incomplete disclosures had delayed her discovery of their possible responsibility. She argued that adding them would allow her negligence claims against all potentially responsible parties to proceed in one case and would avoid parallel lawsuits.

Judge Failla did not decide whether the new parties could be added or whether the case should be remanded. Judge Failla ordered the existing defendant to respond to the plaintiff’s letter by May 7, 2021.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Hernandez v. Family Dollar Stores of New York, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-07888
Judge
Katherine Failla
Date
May 4, 2021

Background

The opinion text consists of the plaintiff’s May 4, 2021 letter and the court’s order responding to it. The plaintiff alleged that she slipped and fell in August 2018 on water leaking from a freezer at the store. She described repeated freezer leaks, prior repair efforts, and testimony that the leaks were a recurring dangerous condition.

Plaintiff’s request

The plaintiff sought permission under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20, which governs joining parties in one lawsuit, to add three defendants: Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. (“DTS”), SMS Assist, LLC (“SMS”), and Thermochill HVACR, LLC (“THERMO”). The letter identifies DTS as a Virginia corporation, SMS as a Delaware corporation, and THERMO as a New York corporation. It states that DTS was the corporate parent of Family Dollar Stores of New York, SMS provided property-management and maintenance services, and SMS had contracted with THERMO for refrigeration and freezer maintenance and repairs in New York.

The plaintiff asserted negligence claims against the proposed defendants. She alleged that DTS negligently hired SMS and failed to remove or replace faulty freezers, that SMS failed to ensure competent maintenance and repairs, and that THERMO performed a faulty repair before the plaintiff’s fall. She also argued that the existing defendant had failed to disclose relevant contracts, repair records, and witnesses, causing the delay in seeking joinder.

The plaintiff further asked the federal court to remand the case to state court. She argued that adding THERMO, a New York corporation, would destroy complete diversity—the requirement that no plaintiff share state citizenship with any defendant—and therefore eliminate the basis for federal diversity jurisdiction. She also argued that joinder would avoid separate lawsuits involving the same underlying facts.

Court’s action

The court did not rule on the request to amend the complaint, join DTS, SMS, or THERMO, or remand the case. Instead, Judge Katherine Polk Failla directed the defendant to submit a response addressing the issues raised in the plaintiff’s letter by May 7, 2021. The text provided does not state the eventual outcome of those requests.

The authoritative version

Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.