Laserfiche WebLink
1447(e), courts have considered factors such as the extent to which the purpose of an <br />amendment was solely to defeat diversity; whether a plaintiff was dilatory in amending <br />the complaint; the injury to a plaintiff if joinder is denied; the interests of judicial <br />economy and avoiding parallel state court litigation; and the federal court's interest in <br />ruling on a question of state law.2 <br />Here, the equitable factors weigh in favor of granting Empire's Motion. Empire <br />is seeking a declazatory judgment establishing its right to enter the Barkers' land in order <br />to fulfill legally required reclamation obligations. By seeking leave to add claims against <br />additional parties who also have interests in the Property, Empire cleazly is not seeking <br />solely to defeat diversity jurisdiction, but rather is seeking to ensure that its rights aze <br />completely and finally adjudicated in a single proceeding. Empire has not been dilatory <br />in raising its claims, but rather sought to amend its Complaint promptly after the Bazkers' <br />Answer was filed, disclosing the existence of other interests in the Property. <br />Furthermore, Empire will be prejudiced and judicial resources will be wasted if Empire is <br />forced to file a subsequent state court proceeding to determine the relative priorities of its <br />rights and those of Mr. Stinson and the State, and there is no federal interest at stake in <br />adjudicating a claim implicating state property law and a state statute. <br />In the present case, the equities weigh heavily in favor of allowing Empire to <br />adjudicate all of its rights and statutory reclamation obligations with respect to the <br />Property in a single state court proceeding. Empire has not been dilatory in raising its <br />claims against the nondiverse parties, but rather, sought to add them as soon as <br />practicable after Bazkers disclosed in their Answer that they were not the sole owners of <br />~ See, jor example, /031nvestors /, L.P. v. Square D Co., 222 F.Supp.2d 1263, 1270-1271 (D.Kan. 2002), <br />rev'd in part on other grounds, 372 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2004). <br />6 <br />