REV100995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18968 citizen would destroy federal jurisdiction over this matter. domiciliary of Kansas, as is Dr. Dobson, so joinder would destroy diversity. The burden of proof is on the defendants to show that diversity would still exist if the joinder were permitted. McNutt v. General Motors Acceotance Corn. 298 U S 178. 189 (]9361 (upon motion for remand, burden of proof generally rests on the removing party to show that diversity exists); accord Elkhart Co-on. Eouity Exchange v Dav 716 F Supp 1484 ] 38,5 (D. Kan. 19891 Citizenship is determined as of the date the complaint was initially filed. See DeBrv v. Transamerica Coro.. 601 F 2d 480. 486 (10th Cir. 19791; Woolsey v. Petroleum Production Management, Inc., No. 88-1076-C (D. Kan. Oct. 17, 1989) (1989 WL 123256) (citizenship determined as of date complaint filed and from affidavits and sworn documents submitted by parties). Once a person establishes a domicile in a particular state, the domicile is presumed to continue in that state, even if the party leaves the state, until the adoption of a new domicile ]*4] is proved. See Desmare v. United States, 93 U.S. (3 Ottol 605, 610 (15761: Sun Printine & Ynblishina Assn v. Edwards. 194 IJ.S. 377. 383 (1904): accord Gates v. Commissioner. 199 F 2d 291. 294 (10th Cir. 19521 (factors determining domicile include where the individual pays taxes, resides, works, and is registered to vote). Defendants' contention that plaintiff is domiciled in Arkansas is premised on an answer to an interrogatory in which plaintiff listed an Arkansas address as a residence. In response, plaintiff has submitted an affidavit indicating that she does not intend to stay in Arkansas permanently. She maintains that she is only living in Arkansas now to receive medical care for her blindness, a condition allegedly caused by defendants. (See Doc. # 22, Exh. I). Defendants' alleged proof of plaintiffs domicile consists only of her admission that she has lived at an address outside of Kansas. The same interrogatory answer on which defendants rely, however, also states that plaintiff lived in Kansas for 19 years. Merely residing in another state does not amount to a change in plaintiffs legal state of domicile, absent an intent ]*5] to remain there permanently. Gates v. Commissioner. 199 F 2d 291. 294 110th Cir 19521. Defendants, therefore, have not me[ their burden of proving that diversity would be maintained if Dr. Dobson were joined. Plaintiff is a A relatively new federal statute governs joinder and remand claims in situations such as this. Under 28 U.S.C. & 1447(e), "If after removal the plaintiff seeks to join additional defendants whose joinder would destroy subject matter jurisdiction, the court may deny joinder, or permit joinder and remand [he action to the State court." 2S U.S.C_S. 6 1447(e) (Law. Co-op. 1989). When this section was added in 1988, Congress explained: Proposed section 1447(e) is new. I[ takes advantage of the opportunity opened by removal from a state court to permit remand if a plaintiff seeks to join a diversity-destroying defendant after removal. Joinder coupled with remand may be more attractive than either dismissal under civil rule I9(b) or denial of joinder. The flexibility built into the framework of rule 19(b) fully supports this approach... . H.R. Rep. No. 889, 100th Cong., ~*6j 2d Sess., reprinted in 1988 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 5982, 6033. Instead of emphasizing the indispensability analysis under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(b) in determining whether to allow joinder and remand, courts now focus on whether joinder would be "equitable." S[. Louis Trade Diverters, Inc. v. Constitution State Insurance Co., 738 F. Supp. 1269, 1271 (E.D. Mo. 1990E In this cast, the interests of justice require a remand so that all of the issues can be tried together. Forcing the parties to litigate the case in federal court without Dr. Dobson would result in piecemeal litigation. In order to obtain full recovery for her alleged injuries, plaintiff would [hen have to sue Dr. Dobson in state court, resulting in the dual litigation of essentially the same issues. The issues presented in this case were recently. addressed by a federal court in New York. In Wilson v Famatax. [nc. 72G F. Suop. 950 IS.D.N.Y. 19891. the plaintiffs filed a products liability action in state court. After the case was removed to federal court, plaintiffs moved to join an allegedly negligent treating physician as a defendant. The court held that the plaintiffs could join the I*7] defendant and amend their complaint, even though it would destroy diversity. The court allowed joinder and remanded the case to state court under 2S U.S.C. § ]447(e) in order to improve judicial economy Page 2