BELL v. KAISER ALUMINUM AND CHEMICAL CORPORATION, (E.D.La. 2000)

EDITH BROWN CLEMENT, United States District Judge

Before the Court are Plaintiffs' Motions for Leave to File Supplemental and Amending Petitions. In accordance with the order of this Court dated December 7, 1999, IT IS ORDERED that these cases are restored to the trial docket so that the Plaintiffs' motions may be resolved.

For the following reasons, Plaintiffs' Motions are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Since the non-diverse defendants added by the Plaintiffs destroy this Court's subject matter jurisdiction, these consolidated cases will be REMANDED sua sponte to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (c).

After an explosion on July 5, 1999 at Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Company's ("Kaiser") plant in Gramercy, Louisiana, numerous putative class action lawsuits were filed against Kaiser in state court. Kaiser removed these suits to federal court based on federal question and diversity jurisdiction, and all forty cases have been consolidated in the present proceeding. Plaintiffs now seek to amend their original petitions to join additional parties.

Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that leave to amend pleadings should "be freely given when justice so requires." FED. R. Civ. P. 15(a). However, an amended complaint naming new non-diverse defendants in a removed case is subject to heightened scrutiny, in consideration of the original defendant's interest in the choice of forum. See Hensgens v. Deere Co., 833 F.2d 1179, 1182 (5th Cir. 1987). In order to properly balance the defendant's interests in maintaining the federal forum with the competing interest of not having parallel lawsuits, a district court must consider (1) the extent to which the purpose of the amendment is to defeat federal jurisdiction, (2) whether plaintiff has been dilatory in asking for amendment, (3) whether plaintiff will be significantly injured if amendment is not allowed, and (4) any other factors bearing on the equities. Id.

In the case at bar, Plaintiffs seek to add six individuals and sixteen corporations as defendants. After ruling on the Plaintiffs Motion to Amend, the Court will address the impact of this ruling on its jurisdiction.

First, Plaintiffs seek to add David Steel, Walter Hansley, O.J. Garcia, Ray Burkart, Howard Anderson, and William G. Kirsch as defendants. Anderson, Burkart, Garcia, and Kirsch are employees of Kaiser. Steel and Hansley are employees of Manpower, Inc. ("Manpower").

This Court is confident that the Plaintiffs do not intend to pursue these individuals personally. Under the doctrine of respondent superior, the proposed fault of these newly named defendants would be attributed to Kaiser and Manpower. If these individuals were negligent, their respective employers will be liable to the Plaintiffs for all their damages. Furthermore, Louisiana law provides that the degree or percentage of fault of all persons causing or contributing to the Plaintiffs' injuries must be determined at trial, regardless of whether the person is a party or nonparty to the action. See LA. CIV. CODE ANN. ART. 2323 (West 1987). In light of these facts, a judgment rendered without these individuals as defendants would not be prejudicial to the Plaintiffs. See Campagna v. Averitt Express, Inc., No. 99-1007, 1999 WL 386652 (E.D. La. June 10, 1999) (Sear, J.) (denying plaintiffs' motion to add a non-diverse employee of the original defendant). Accordingly, with respect to these six individuals, Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend is DENIED.

Plaintiffs also seek to add sixteen corporations as defendants. Each of these corporations was involved in the installation or maintenance of Kaiser's electrical system, and Plaintiffs allege that an electrical malfunction caused the explosion at the plant. Bell's Second Suppl. Am. Compl. ¶ 3(a). Since the Plaintiffs have alleged facts sufficient to establish a cause of action against these sixteen corporations, this Court should not disregard the joinder of these defendants. See 14 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT, ARTHUR R. MILLER AND EDWARD H. COOPER, FEDERAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: JURISDICTION 3D § 3641 (3d ed. 1998).

In addition, an analysis of the Hensgens factors, supra, does not mandate denying the Plaintiffs' motions. First, since the Plaintiffs did not know of these additional defendants until after removal, the Court does not find that the primary purpose of this amendment is to defeat federal jurisdiction. Secondly, there is no evidence that the Plaintiffs were dilatory in discovering and adding these new defendants. Third, denial of Plaintiffs' motion would require plaintiffs to simultaneously prosecute these actions in state and federal court. Finally, a suit against these sixteen corporations has already been filed in state court. Parallel adjudication of suits against Kaiser and these sixteen defendants would be a waste of judicial resources and would raise the possibility of inconsistent verdicts.

While the Court regards Kaiser's interest in a federal forum as legitimate, it is not sufficiently weighty in these circumstances to warrant denial of Plaintiffs' motion. Accordingly, with respect to these sixteen corporations, Plaintiffs' Motions for Leave to Amend their complaints is GRANTED.

The Court will now consider the impact of Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend on the Court's jurisdiction. Kaiser removed this case on the bases of both federal question and diversity jurisdiction. Kaiser argues that its Gramercy plant is subject to the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. § 801, et seq. Mem. Supp. Mot. Remand at 16. When the Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration (FMSHA) took control of the plant after the explosion, the Louisiana state court granted an order challenging FMSHA's jurisdiction and investigation procedures. Id. Kaiser maintains that this state court order confers federal question jurisdiction. Id. at 17.

For original federal question jurisdiction there must be a substantial claim founded directly upon federal law. See 13B CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT, ARTHUR R. MILLER AND EDWARD H. COOPER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: JURISDICTION 2d § 3562 (2d ed. 1984), citing Mishkin, The Federal "Question" in the District Courts, 53 Col.L.Rev. 157, 165, 168 (1953). In the unusual case in which there is a debatable issue about federal question jurisdiction, pragmatic considerations must be taken into account. Id. In the case at bar, the Plaintiffs have not brought any claims founded directly on federal law. The Plaintiffs have alleged causes of action for negligence and strict liability and have stated a claim under the Louisiana Products Liability Act, La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 9:2800.54. The federal statute mentioned by Kaiser is only indirectly related to the case at bar. Congress passed the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act to "promulgate improved mandatory health or safety standards to protect the health and safety of the Nation's coal or other miners" and to assist the states in developing their own safety programs. 30 U.S.C.A. § 801 (West 1986). Accordingly, the Court holds that it does not have federal question jurisdiction over this matter.

Kaiser also removed this case on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. This Order has destroyed the Court's diversity jurisdiction by permitting the addition of non-diverse parties. Since the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction, this case is hereby REMANDED sua sponte.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motions for Leave to Amend their complaints to add MEL Corp.; MEI Contractors, Inc.; MEI Electrical, Inc.; Merit Electrical Instrumentation, Inc.: Merit Electrical, Inc.; Excel Group, Inc.; Excel Analytical Services, Inc.; Power Control Systems, Inc.; Power Control Systems International, Inc.; Turner Industries, Ltd.; Harmony Corp.; Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories, Inc.; Thomas Betts Corp.; Manpower, Inc.; Manpower International, Inc.; and Adhesives Research, Inc. are GRANTED.

Furthermore, since non-diverse defendants in this group destroy this Court's subject matter jurisdiction, IT IS ORDERED that Civil Action No.'s 99-2078, 99-2231, 99-2232, 99-2233, 99-2234, 99-2235, 99-2236, 99-2237, 99-2238, 99-2240, 99-2241, 99-2244, 99-2245, 99-2247, 99-2250, 99-2350, 99-2351, 99-2352, 00-1542, 00-1543, and 00-1880 are hereby REMANDED sua sponte.

Finally, for the reasons stated in this Order, the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Civil Action No. 00-1948, which was originally filed in federal court. Accordingly, Civil Action No. 00-1948 is DISMISSED sua sponte.