Hacala v. Amazon.Com, Inc. et al, No. 5:2019cv05131 - Document 63 (W.D. Ark. 2020)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 56 Motion for Leave to file a third-party complaint; denying 57 Motion for Leave to file an amended answer; denying 58 Motion for Leave to file an amended answer and granting 59 Motion for Leave to file a third amended complaint (see Order for specifics). Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes III on February 12, 2020. (tg)
Download PDF
Hacala v. Amazon.Com, Inc. et al Doc. 63 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION STEPHEN P. HACALA, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Stephen Patrick Hacala Jr., deceased v. PLAINTIFF No. 5:19-CV-05131 AMAZON.COM, INC., et al DEFENDANTS OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 59) for leave to file a proposed third amended complaint and proposed third amended complaint (Doc. 59-1). Defendant Sincerely Nuts, Inc. (“Sincerely Nuts”) filed a motion (Doc. 56) for leave to file a third-party complaint and a motion (Doc. 57) to file an amended answer. Defendant Amazon.Com, Inc. (“Amazon”) filed a motion (Doc. 58) for leave to file an amended answer. Neither Amazon nor Sincerely Nuts oppose Plaintiff’s motion for leave. 1 Plaintiff’s proposed third amended complaint adds Bedemco and FDL as parties in place of two of the “John Doe” defendants. Bedemco is alleged to be a foreign corporation with a principal place of business in New York. FDL is alleged to be a foreign corporation with a principal place of business in the United Kingdom. Paragraph four of the proposed third amended complaint states Plaintiff is seeking recovery from “Amazon, Sincerely Nuts, Bedemco, and John Does 2 and 3.” (Doc. 59-1, p. 2, ¶ 4). Because Plaintiff’s motion states that Bedemco and FDL are taking the place of John Doe defendants 1 and 2, it is likely that paragraph 4 of the proposed 1 Amazon filed a notice (Doc. 60) of non-opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. Sincerely Nuts also filed a notice (Doc. 61) of non-opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. 1 Dockets.Justia.com amended complaint is in error and should read “This Complaint seeks recovery from Amazon, Sincerely Nuts, Bedemco, FDL, and John Doe 3 . . . .” Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a third amended complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff is directed to file the third amended complaint but must correct the naming of John Doe 2 in paragraph 4. Further, Plaintiff must supplement the citizenship allegations of Bedemco and FDL to comply with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). A complaint must “set forth with specificity a corporate party’s state of incorporation and principal place of business” and diversity is not properly established if the complaint fails to state the place of incorporation. Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 823 F.2d 214, 216 (8th Cir. 1987) (emphasis in original). Plaintiff’s proposed third amended complaint states Bedemco and FDL are foreign corporations but does not specify the place of incorporation. In order to establish subject matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, Plaintiff must allege Bedemco and FDL’s places of incorporation and principal places of business. An amended complaint supersedes an original complaint and renders the original as without legal effect. In re Atlas Van Lines, Inc., 209 F.3d 1064, 1067 (8th Cir. 2000). Sincerely Nuts’ motion for leave to file a third-party complaint seeks to bring claims against Bedemco and FDL, apparently the same parties Plaintiff is adding to his third amended complaint. Both Sincerely Nuts and Amazon’s motions to file amended answers are directed at Plaintiff’s second amended complaint and allege fault of Bedemco and FDL. Because a third amended complaint is to be filed and may affect Defendant Sincerely Nuts’ motions and Defendant Amazon’s motion, those motions will be denied with leave to refile. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 59) to file a third amended complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff is directed to immediately file the proposed third amended complaint with the revisions stated in this order. Defendants’ motions (Docs. 56, 57, & 58) are 2 DENIED without prejudice to their refiling. Defendants may file responses within fourteen (14) days after the third amended complaint is filed. IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of February, 2020. /s/P. K. Holmes, III P.K. HOLMES, III U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 3