United States District Court, D. Hawaii
LUCAS PARRISH; MELINA PARRISH, Individually and as prochien ami for minor Children E.L.P., born in 2002; and E.D.P., born in 2002, Plaintiffs,
JCI JONES CHEMICALS, INC., a for-profit New York Corporation; JOHN DOES 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS 1- 10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; and DOE ENTITIES 1-10, Defendants. JCI JONES CHEMICALS, INC., Third-Party Plaintiff,
STATE OF HAWAI‘I; COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I, Third-Party Defendants.
ORDER AFFIRMING ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN
PART PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED
A. OTAKE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is Plaintiffs Lucas and Melina Parrish's
(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) Appeal In-Part of
Magistrate Judge's Order Granting in Part and Denying in
Part Plaintiffs' Request for Leave to File First Amended
Complaint (the “Appeal”). Doc. No. 79. Defendant
JCI Jones Chemicals, Inc. (“Defendant”) filed its
response and opposition on November 27, 2018. Doc. No. 82.
This matter shall be decided without a hearing pursuant to
Rule 7.2(e) of the Local Rules of Practice for the United
States District Court for the District of Hawaii. For the
reasons set forth below, the Court AFFIRMS the Order Granting
in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs' Request for Leave
to File First Amended Complaint.
parties and the Court are familiar with the factual history
of this case, the Court need not recount it here. The Court
includes only those facts necessary for the disposition of
August 22, 2017, Plaintiffs initiated this action in the
Circuit Court of the Third Circuit, State of Hawai‘i,
asserting negligence (Count I) and strict liability (Count
II) claims against Defendant. Doc. No. 1, Ex. A. Defendant
removed the action on the basis of diversity jurisdiction on
October 13, 2017. Doc. No. 1.
September 20, 2018, the Magistrate Judge approved a
stipulation granting Defendant leave to file a third-party
complaint against the State of Hawai‘i and the County
of Hawai‘i (“County”). Doc. No. 55.
Defendant filed its Third-Party Complaint the same day. Doc.
No. 56. The County filed its Answer to the Third-Party
Complaint and a Counterclaim against Defendant on October 26,
2018. Doc. No. 64. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to
File Amended Complaint and for Remand on October 30,
2018. Doc. No. 66.
respect to the request to amend the Complaint, Plaintiffs
sought to (1) allege additional facts related to their
negligence claim against Defendant, and (2) add direct claims
against the County. Doc. No. 66. On November 19, 2018, the
Magistrate Judge issued an Order Granting in Part and Denying
in Part Plaintiffs' Request to File First Amended
Complaint. Doc. No. 77. The Magistrate Judge granted
Plaintiffs' request for leave to amend to add factual
allegations against Defendant but denied Plaintiffs'
request to add direct claims against the County. Id.
Magistrate Judge considered Plaintiff's request for
amendment under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e) because the proposed
claims would destroy complete diversity. Id. at 5.
He noted that the decision to allow joinder is discretionary
and based on the weighing of the following factors:
(1) whether the new defendants should be joined under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure [(“FRCP”)] 19(a) as
“needed for just adjudication”; (2) whether the
statute of limitations would preclude an original action
against the new defendants in state court; (3) whether there
has been unexplained delay in requesting joinder; (4) whether
joinder is intended solely to defeat federal jurisdiction;
and (5) whether the claims against the new defendant appear
valid; and (6) whether denial of joinder will prejudice the
Id. at 6. The Magistrate Judge found that factors
(3), (4), and (5) weighed in favor of amendment and that
factors (1), (2), and (6) weighed against amendment.
Id. at 6-10.
whether the County should be joined under FRCP 19(a), the
Magistrate Judge concluded that “[a]lthough
Plaintiffs' claims against the County arise from the same
events as their claims against Defendant JCI, it is not
necessary to consider the claims against the County to
resolve Plaintiffs' existing claims against Defendant JCI
nor it is necessary to join the County to protect its
interests.” Id. at 7.
considering whether the statute of limitations would preclude
an original action against the new defendants in state court,
the Magistrate Judge noted that Plaintiffs would not be
precluded because they have already filed an action in state
court. Id. The Magistrate Judge also determined that
Plaintiffs had not demonstrated sufficient prejudice.
Id. at 9.
the factors as a whole, the Magistrate Judge held:
After weighing the relevant factors and considering the
circumstances of this case, the Court finds that it is not
appropriate to allow Plaintiffs to assert claims against the
County in this action. As noted above, the County is not a
necessary party to this litigation and Plaintiffs have
already filed a state court action against the County in
state court. Further, this action has been proceeding for
more than a year in federal court, the dispositive motions
deadline is set for January 2, 2019, and ...