Jerido v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Background

Ebony S. Jerido brought a personal-injury action against Uber Technologies, Inc. after an accident on January 2, 2018. She alleged that she was struck and dragged by a vehicle driven by Uber driver Shree K. Syangtan. Jerido had previously filed a negligence action in Bronx County Supreme Court against Syangtan and Venture Leasing LLC, which the opinion identifies as the owner of the vehicle. That earlier state-court action remained pending.

Jerido later filed a separate action against Uber in Bronx County Supreme Court. Her claims included vicarious liability, joint and several liability, negligent ownership and operation of the vehicle, negligent supervision of Uber’s employee drivers, an alleged violation of New York Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1225-d(1-a), and alleged negligence involving the Uber application. Uber removed the action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. The court found that removal was proper because Jerido was a New York citizen, Uber was incorporated in Delaware and had its principal place of business in California, and Jerido identified $5 million as the amount sought.

Joinder and Remand Analysis

Jerido moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 to add Syangtan and Venture as defendants and then sought remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e). That statute allows a federal court, after removal, to permit the addition of defendants whose citizenship would eliminate subject-matter jurisdiction and remand the case to state court.

The court first found that Rule 20 allowed joinder. Both the federal action and the earlier state-court action arose from the same accident, and the cases involved common questions of fact or law concerning the accident, the alleged injuries, and potential liability.

The court then considered whether joinder and the resulting remand were fundamentally fair. It found that the relevant factors favored Jerido:

- Delay: Jerido moved to join Syangtan and Venture less than three weeks after Uber removed the case, which the court considered timely. - Prejudice: Discovery was still in its early stages, and Uber did not show that joinder would require it to abandon or substantially revise litigation work already completed. - Multiple litigation: Keeping the two cases separate could require overlapping litigation concerning the same accident and could lead to inconsistent or duplicative proceedings. Although Jerido’s litigation strategy contributed to the existence of two cases, the court still found this factor favored joinder, with less weight. - Motivation: The court found Jerido had a proper reason for seeking joinder, including avoiding redundant discovery and testimony. It rejected Uber’s argument that the request was fraudulent or solely intended to defeat diversity jurisdiction. The possibility that the case might later face dismissal under New York’s rule concerning another pending action did not meet the high standard required to establish fraudulent joinder.

Disposition

The court granted Jerido’s motion for remand and directed the Clerk of Court to remand the case to New York State Supreme Court, Bronx County, under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e). The court’s ruling permitted the requested joinder of Syangtan and Venture as part of that remand decision. The court declined to address Jerido’s alternative request for remand based on abstention. Judge Katherine Polk Failla did not decide whether Jerido ultimately proved her personal-injury claims against Uber, Syangtan, or Venture.