John S. Clark Co., Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Ill.
359 F. Supp. 2d 429 (2004)
Rule of Law:
A federal district court, in its discretion, may decline to dismiss a properly joined, non-diverse, but dispensable party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 for the sole purpose of creating diversity jurisdiction if doing so would be fundamentally unfair, contrary to judicial economy, and would prejudice the remaining parties by creating duplicative litigation.
Facts:
- John S. Clark Company, Inc. ('Plaintiff'), a citizen of North Carolina for jurisdictional purposes, was the general contractor for the renovation of a church.
- Plaintiff obtained commercial general liability insurance policies for the project from Travelers Indemnity Company of Illinois ('Travelers'), a citizen of a different state.
- Plaintiff hired Ignacio Herrera, Marina Herrera, and Herrera Masonry, Inc. ('the Herrera Defendants'), all citizens of North Carolina, as masonry subcontractors.
- The contract with the Herrera Defendants contained a warranty against defects in materials and workmanship and an agreement to indemnify Plaintiff for any losses resulting from their work.
- On January 19, 2001, a portion of the masonry work performed by the Herrera Defendants collapsed.
- Plaintiff repaired the collapsed portion and also corrected other structural defects discovered in the Herrera Defendants' work.
- Plaintiff sought payment for the damages and repair costs from both the Herrera Defendants under their contract and from Travelers under the insurance policy.
Procedural Posture:
- John S. Clark Company, Inc. filed a civil action against the Herrera Defendants and Travelers Indemnity Company in the Superior Court of Guilford County, North Carolina, a state trial court.
- Travelers filed a notice of removal to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, claiming federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship.
- The Herrera Defendants filed a motion to remand the case to state court, arguing a lack of complete diversity.
- Plaintiff also filed a motion to remand on the same grounds and because the Herrera Defendants had not consented to removal.
- In response, Travelers filed a motion to dismiss the Herrera Defendants from the case, arguing they were improperly joined and that dropping them would perfect diversity 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 federal court have discretion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 to grant a defendant's motion to drop a properly joined, non-diverse defendant in order to create diversity jurisdiction and retain the case, when the claims against all defendants arise from the same series of occurrences and share common questions of fact?
Opinions:
Majority - Bullock, District Judge
No. A court should decline to exercise its discretion to drop a properly joined party when doing so would be fundamentally unfair. The Herrera Defendants were properly joined under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a) because the claims against them and Travelers arise from the same series of transactions or occurrences—the defective masonry work and the resulting financial loss—and share common questions of fact regarding causation and the extent of damages. Although a court has discretion under Rule 21 to drop a non-diverse party that is not indispensable, exercising that discretion here would be improper. It would prejudice the Plaintiff by forcing it to pursue two separate lawsuits in state and federal court over the same core facts, leading to increased costs, delay, and the risk of inconsistent verdicts. Given these considerations of fundamental fairness, judicial economy, and potential prejudice, the court will not drop the non-diverse Herrera Defendants to create federal jurisdiction.
Analysis:
This case illustrates the judiciary's reluctance to allow procedural mechanisms to defeat a plaintiff's choice of forum and the strong preference for judicial economy. It clarifies that a defendant cannot simply sever a properly joined, non-diverse co-defendant to manufacture federal diversity jurisdiction, especially when the claims are logically intertwined. The opinion reinforces the principle that removal statutes are strictly construed and that equitable considerations like fairness and efficiency guide a court's discretion under Rule 21, weighing against creating piecemeal litigation. This serves as a check on defendants who might otherwise seek to escape state court by arguing for the dismissal of dispensable but factually relevant non-diverse parties.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: John S. Clark Co., Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Ill. (2004)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"