American Fiber & Finishing, Inc. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, LP
362 F.3d 136, 2004 WL 603497, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 5774 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff's amendment to a complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) that substitutes a non-diverse defendant for an originally diverse defendant destroys a federal court's subject matter jurisdiction, even if complete diversity existed when the action was initially filed.
Facts:
- American Fiber & Finishing, Inc. (AF & F) incurred costs for the environmental decontamination of an industrial site in Massachusetts.
- AF & F sought to hold the successor in interest to the Kendall Company liable for these costs.
- By October 1998, years before the lawsuit began, Tyco Healthcare Group, LP had acquired all of Kendall Company's assets and liabilities.
- AF & F initially and mistakenly believed that Tyco International (US), Inc. was the correct successor in interest to Kendall Company.
Procedural Posture:
- American Fiber & Finishing, Inc. (AF & F) sued Tyco International (US), Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, asserting federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship.
- Before Tyco International filed a responsive pleading, AF & F filed an amended complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), substituting Tyco Healthcare Group, LP as the sole defendant.
- The district court presided over two years of pretrial proceedings.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant Tyco Healthcare.
- AF & F, the plaintiff, appealed the district court's summary judgment ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
- While preparing its appeal, AF & F discovered the lack of complete diversity and filed a motion with the appellate court to vacate the district court's judgment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff's amended complaint that substitutes a non-diverse defendant for the original diverse defendant destroy the federal court's diversity jurisdiction?
Opinions:
Majority - Selya, Circuit Judge
Yes, a plaintiff's amended complaint that substitutes a non-diverse defendant for the original diverse defendant destroys the federal court's diversity jurisdiction. The bedrock principle of complete diversity requires that no plaintiff be a citizen of the same state as any defendant. When AF & F amended its complaint to replace the diverse Tyco International with the non-diverse Tyco Healthcare, complete diversity was destroyed. The court distinguished this situation from the Supreme Court's holding in Freeport-McMoRan, which preserved jurisdiction after a post-filing transfer of interest under Rule 25(c). Here, the substitution involved a pre-existing party via a Rule 15 amendment, a crucial difference. Citing Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, the court reasoned that a plaintiff cannot accomplish in two steps what it is forbidden from doing in one—that is, creating a lawsuit between non-diverse parties. Finally, the court rejected Tyco Healthcare's estoppel argument, affirming that subject matter jurisdiction cannot be created by waiver, consent, or oversight, as federal courts have a duty to police their own limited jurisdiction.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strictness of the complete diversity requirement and clarifies the limits of the 'time-of-filing' rule. It establishes that substituting a pre-existing, non-diverse party via a Rule 15 amendment is a jurisdiction-destroying event, unlike a post-filing transfer of interest under Rule 25. The case serves as a stark reminder that subject matter jurisdiction is a fundamental prerequisite that cannot be waived or created by estoppel, even if a jurisdictional defect goes unnoticed for years and results in a final judgment on the merits. This precedent solidifies the principle that federal courts must vigilantly guard their limited jurisdiction, prioritizing it over the finality of judgments or perceived inequities between the parties.
