Laserfiche WebLink
leave to amend -such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive, repeated failure to <br />cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing <br />party, futility of an amendment, etc. -'leave sought should, as the rules require, be <br />freely given.'° Id. at 466 (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). <br />Yet, because the court's decision will determine the continuance of its <br />jurisdiction, the addition of a non~iverse party must not be permitted without <br />consideration of the original defendant's interest in the choice of forum. The court, <br />when faced with an amended pleading naming a new non-diverse defendant in a <br />removed case, must scrutinize that amendment more Gosely than an ordinary <br />amendment. Hensgens v. Deere 6 Co., 833 F.2d 1179, 1182 (5'" Cir. 1987). For <br />example, the court should consider the extent to which the purpose of the amendment <br />is to defeat federal jurisdiction, whether plaintiff has been dilatory in asking for <br />amendment, whether plaintiff will be significantly injured if amendment is not allowed, <br />and any other factors bearing on the equities. Hensgens, 833 F.2d at 1182. <br />In this case there can be no argument of bad faith, dilatory motive, or prejudice <br />to the Defendants. No discovery has commenced in this action, no briefing has <br />occur-ed, and there is no reason that amendment will prejudice the Defendants in this <br />case. Further, the equities favor allowing amendment even though it will resuk in <br />remand <br />Plaintiff has not been dilatory. Plaintiff relied upon a representation by <br />Defendants' counsel that Ray and Brad Barker were the sole owners of the Property. <br />Only after receiving the Answer did Plaintiff have reason to undertake further <br />