Tucker v. International Proactive Security, Inc.

Background

On September 12, 2019, the plaintiffs were injured when a hoist allegedly dropped quickly and then stopped suddenly during a construction accident. They sued various defendants in New York state court on March 6, 2020, asserting negligence and violations of New York labor law.

During discovery, the plaintiffs learned on August 11, 2022, that the hoist operators were employed by International Proactive Security, Inc. Concerned that the statute of limitations might expire before they could add International Proactive Security to the original lawsuit, the plaintiffs filed a separate state-court action against that company on September 2, 2022. In February 2023, the plaintiffs asked International Proactive Security to agree to combine the two lawsuits. Instead, International Proactive Security removed its separate case to federal court on April 7, 2023, asserting diversity jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs moved to add the defendants from the original state-court action to the federal case and to return the case to state court. Adding those defendants would eliminate diversity jurisdiction.

Federal jurisdiction

The court first determined that removal had been proper. The opinion states that the plaintiffs are citizens of New York and International Proactive Security is a citizen of New Jersey. The plaintiffs sought $5 million and $6 million in damages, respectively, exceeding the amount required for diversity jurisdiction. The court therefore concluded that it had diversity jurisdiction when International Proactive Security removed the case.

Joinder

“Joinder” means including additional parties in the same lawsuit. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20, additional defendants may be joined when the claims arise from the same transaction or occurrence and share a common question of law or fact.

The court found joinder permissible because all the claims arose from the same 2019 hoist accident. The cases involved the same facts, causes of action, and injuries, and the plaintiffs sought relief against the defendants jointly and severally. The court also found common legal or factual questions.

Fairness of joinder and remand

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e), when adding defendants would destroy federal jurisdiction, a court may deny joinder or allow joinder and remand the case to state court. The court considered four factors:

- Delay: The plaintiffs sought joinder less than one month after removal, so the court found no unreasonable delay. - Prejudice: Although discovery was ongoing, the court found that International Proactive Security would not suffer sufficient prejudice. The state court could provide access to existing discovery and allow additional discovery. The court also rejected the company’s argument that losing perceived advantages of federal court was enough to establish prejudice. - Parallel lawsuits: Without joinder, two lawsuits about the same accident would proceed separately, creating inefficiency and a risk of inconsistent judgments. - Motivation: The court found no evidence that the plaintiffs sought joinder solely to destroy diversity jurisdiction. Their explanation—that they filed separately after learning of International Proactive Security’s possible involvement near the limitations deadline—suggested an innocent reason.

The court concluded that all four factors favored joinder and remand.

Costs and disposition

International Proactive Security asked the court to make the plaintiffs pay its costs related to removal and the motion. The court found no supporting authority or other basis to shift those costs to the plaintiffs.

The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for remand, directed the Clerk to terminate Dockets 16 and 29, remand the case to New York State Supreme Court, Bronx County, under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e), and close the federal action.