Laserfiche WebLink
II. This Court's Inquiry is Controlled by the Equitable Standard of 28 U.S.C. <br />§ 1447(e). <br />Although Empire's amendment will have the effect of adding new parties to this <br />proceeding-in addition to asserting additional claims against those parties-Fed. R. Civ. <br />P. 19 does not provide the standazd for reviewing Empire's Motion. When a case has <br />been removed to federal district court, 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e) controls an amendment that <br />seeks to add additional, nondiverse parties. Section 1447 provides, in part, that: <br />If after removal the plaintiff seeks to join additional defendants whose <br />joinder would destroy subject matter jurisdiction, the court may deny <br />joinder, or permit joinder and remand the action to State court. <br />28 U.S.C. § 1447(e). In applying section 1447(e), federal courts have concluded that "the <br />joinder or substitution of nondiverse defendants after removal destroys diversity <br />jurisdiction, regazdless whether such defendants aze dispensable or indispensable to the <br />action." Casas Office Machines, Inc. v. Mita Copystar America, Inc., 42 F.3d 668, 674 <br />(1st Cir. 1994)(collecting authorities); see also, Tucker v. Rio Optical Corp., Civ. Act. <br />No. 91-2064-0, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18968 (D.Kan. Dec. 6, 1991). <br />Under Section 1447(e), the decision to permit joinder of a nondiverse defendant <br />"is committed to the sound discretion of the district court" and "is not controlled by Rule <br />19 analysis." Mayes v. Rappaport, 198 F.3d 457, 462-63 (4th Cir. 1999). Instead of a <br />rigid "indispensability" standard under Rule 19, the district court "should balance the <br />equities in deciding whether the plaintiff should be permitted to join a nondiverse <br />defendant." Mayes, 198 F.3d at 463. In making equitable determinations under Section <br />~ The legislative history of Section 1447(e) strongly supports this construction. When Section 1447(e) was . <br />added in 1988, Congress recogttized that `joinder coupled with remand may be more attractive than either <br />dismissal under civil mle I9(b) or denial of joinder." Tucker, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18968 at `5, quoting <br />H.R. Rep. No. 889, ] 00th Cong., 2d Sess. Tlils case, where an appropriate state forum exists for complete <br />adjudication of the rights and obligations of all interested parties, is precisely [he son of situation where <br />remand is the "more attractive" alumative. <br />