United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Middle Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
This is
a diversity jurisdiction case. Before the Court are Plaintiff
Brandon Morgan's Renewed Motion To Remand (doc. 9) filed
on September 4, 2018, and his Amended Renewed Motion To
Remand (doc. 11) filed on September 7, 2018 (collectively,
the “Renewed Remand Motions”). The Renewed Remand
Motions have been briefed (see docs. 12, 16, 18)
and, accordingly, are ripe for review.
In
Plaintiff's Renewed Motion To Remand, Plaintiff's
sole basis for remand is that his First Amended Complaint
(doc. 8) adds a non-diverse defendant, Faye Jones, who
destroys complete diversity of the parties and causes the
Court to lose subject matter jurisdiction. (See doc.
9 at 2, ¶ 4). Similarly, in Plaintiff's Amended
Renewed Motion To Remand, Plaintiff's sole basis for
remand is that both his First Amended Complaint and his
Second Amended Complaint[1] (doc. 10) (collectively, with the First
Amended Complaint, the “Amended Complaints”) add
a non-diverse defendant, Faye Jones, who destroys complete
diversity of the parties and causes the Court to lose subject
matter jurisdiction. (See doc. 11 at 2, ¶ 6).
The
Renewed Remand Motions are due to be DENIED
for two alternative reasons. First, they are based on Amended
Complaints that have been stricken. (See doc. 19).
Alternatively, Plaintiff cannot add Faye Jones as a
non-diverse defendant because the statute of limitations on
Plaintiff's claims against Faye Jones has run, and
Plaintiff's amendments to his Complaint (doc. 1-1) do not
relate back.
I.
Procedural History
On May
4, 2018, Plaintiff filed his Complaint in the Circuit Court
of Marshall County, Alabama. In the caption of his Complaint,
Plaintiff named the following entities as defendants:
“Publix Super Markets, Inc. and Corporate Creations
Network, Inc., et al.” (Id. at 2)
(capitalization omitted). Plaintiff alleges that, “[o]n
or about May 6, 2016, ” while he “was a business
invitee/licensee on the premises of Defendant's store,
” “[Defendant's] negligence and/or
wantonness[] . . . caused [him] to slip and fall” and
he consequently sustained injuries and damages. (Id.
at 2, ¶¶ 2-6).
On May
6, 2018, the statute of limitations for Plaintiff's
claims ran. See Ala. Code § 6-2-38(1)
(“All actions for any injury to the person or rights of
another not arising from contract and not specifically
enumerated in this section must be brought within two
years.”).
On June
14, 2018, Defendant Publix Super Markets, Inc.,
(“Publix”) filed and served a Notice of Removal
(doc. 1), which removed the case to this Court. Publix also
filed an Answer (doc. 5) on June 25, 2018.
On July
13, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion To Remand. (Doc. 6). In
his Motion To Remand, Plaintiff's sole basis for remand
was that his amended complaint added a non-diverse defendant,
Faye Jones, who destroyed complete diversity of the parties
and caused the Court to lose subject matter jurisdiction.
(See Id. at 2, 4-5). However, at that time,
Plaintiff had not yet filed his amended complaint into the
record. (See Docket Sheet). Accordingly, because the
Motion To Remand was based on an amended complaint that had
not yet been filed into the record, the Court denied without
prejudice the Motion To Remand on August 27, 2018. (Doc. 7).
On
September 4, 2018, Plaintiff then filed his First Amended
Complaint and his Renewed Motion To Remand. However, in the
caption of his First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff incorrectly
listed the newly added defendant as Faith Jones instead of
Faye Jones. (See doc. 8 at 1). Accordingly, on
September 7, 2018, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended
Complaint and his Amended Renewed Motion To Remand. In the
caption of his Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff correctly
listed the newly added defendant as Faye Jones. (See
doc. 10 at 1).
On
September 20, 2018, Publix filed its opposition (doc. 12) to
the Renewed Remand Motions. The Court then held a hearing on
the Renewed Remand Motions on October 3, 2018. Plaintiff
filed his reply brief (doc. 16) in support of the Renewed
Remand Motions on October 4, 2018. Publix filed its sur-reply
(doc. 18) in opposition to the Renewed Remand Motions on
October 11, 2018.[2]
Finally,
on December 3, 2018, the Court entered an Order (doc. 19)
striking Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and his
Second Amended Complaint because they were not filed, as
required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, within the
deadline to file them as a matter of course, with the
opposing party's written consent, or with the Court's
leave. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15.
II.
Standard: Relation Back Doctrine
Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) addresses the relation back of
amendments to an initial pleading:
(c) Relation Back of Amendments.
(1) When an Amendment Relates Back.
An amendment to a pleading relates back to the date of the
original pleading when:
(A) the law that provides the applicable
statute of limitations allows relation back;
(B) the amendment asserts a claim or defense
that arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set
out-or attempted to be set out-in the original pleading; or
(C) the amendment changes the party or the
naming of the party against whom a claim is asserted, if Rule
15(c)(1)(B) is satisfied and if, within the period provided
by Rule 4(m) for serving the summons and complaint, the party
to be brought in by amendment:
(i) received such notice of the action that
it will not be prejudiced in defending on the merits; and
(ii) knew or should have known that the
action would have been brought against it, but for a mistake
concerning the proper party's identity.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c) (emphasis added).
Here,
Alabama law provides the applicable statute of limitations
for Plaintiff's claims. See Ala. Code §
6-2-38(1) (“All actions for any injury to the person or
rights of another not arising from contract and not
specifically enumerated in this section must be brought
within two years.”). Accordingly, Federal “Rule
15(c)(1) directs us to Alabama law governing relation back of
amendments.” See Saxton v. ACF Indus., Inc.,
254 F.3d 959, 964 (11th Cir 2001). Alabama Rule of Civil
Procedure 15(c) provides as follows:
(c) Relation Back of Amendments.
An amendment of a pleading relates back to the date of the
original pleading when
(1) relation back is permitted by the law that provides the
statute of limitations ...