Baquedano v. United Parcel Service General Services Co. et al, No. 1:2014cv00786 - Document 72 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: that Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint is therefore DENIED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 10/6/2014) (tn)

Download PDF

Baquedano v. United Parcel Service General Services Co. et al UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : CRISTIAN BAQUEDANO, : : Plaintiff, : : -v: : UNITED PARCEL SERVICE GENERAL SERVICES : CO. et al., : : Defendants. : : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X Doc. 72 10/06/2014 14-CV-786 (JMF) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: This case was removed from New York State Court pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Sections 1332 and 1441. (Docket No 4). On September 17, 2014, the Court held a pretrial status conference, at which Third-Party Plaintiff United Parcel Service, Inc. ( UPS ) notified the Court that then-Third Party Defendant Lincoln Square Commercial Holding Co., LLC, ( Lincoln Commercial ) was not the proper defendant. The Court granted UPS leave to file amended complaint naming Lincoln Square Condominium ( Lincoln Condominium ) in its place. (Docket No. 64). Plaintiff Cristian Baquedano also expressed an interest in filing an amended complaint to name Lincoln Condominium. Because there was reason to believe that Lincoln Condominium was a resident of New York and therefore that its addition to the case would eliminate the Court s diversity jurisdiction the Court ordered Baquedano to seek leave prior to filing an amended complaint. (Docket No. 62). Plaintiff now does so. 1 Plaintiff filed his motion as a letter motion. (Docket No. 68). Because the Court s Local Rules do not permit motions to amend by letter motion, the Clerk of Court rejected the motion as deficient. In the interests of efficiency, and because the matter is fully briefed, however, the Court will rule on the merits of the motion. Plaintiff s letter motion is attached to this Memorandum Opinion and Order. 1 Dockets.Justia.com The standards applicable to Plaintiff s motion are well established and undisputed. That is, the decision to join new parties, even if those parties destroy diversity and require a remand, is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Moncion v. Infra Metals Corp., No. 01-CV11389 (RLE), 2002 WL 31834442, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2002); McGee v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 684 F. Supp. 2d 258, 261 (E.D.N.Y. 2009). In exercising that discretion, courts typically consider four factors: (1) whether the plaintiff delayed in moving to amend; (2) the resulting prejudice to defendants from joinder; (3) the likelihood of multiple litigations; and (4) plaintiff s motivation in moving to amend. The Court must consider the totality of the circumstances. Ambac Assurance Corp. v. EMC Mortg. Corp., No. 08-CV-9464 (RMB) (THK), 2011 WL 308276, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Upon consideration of those factors and the parties submissions (Docket Nos. 68, 71), the Court denies Plaintiff s motion, substantially for the reasons set forth in Defendant s memorandum of law. First and foremost, although Plaintiff may not have known until last month that Lincoln Condominium was the proper party, he has known that he could bring a cause of action against the relevant building s owner since at least May 2014 (when Defendant filed its Third Party Complaint (Docket No. 20)), and likely much longer. Nevertheless, he provides no cause, let alone good cause, for his failure to pursue the matter sooner. (See Def. s Mem. Law Opp n Pl. s Mot. Leave To Amend (Docket No. 71) 8-9). Second, insofar as discovery in this case is substantially complete and allowing Plaintiff to amend would require remand to state court, UPS would be prejudiced by granting Plaintiff s motion. (See id. at 12). Finally, although denying leave to amend increases the probability of multiple litigations, 2 Plaintiff may well be able to obtain all of the relief he ultimately seeks in this action alone by virtue of UPS s third-party action against Lincoln Condominium. (See id. at 10-11). In light of the foregoing, it is hard to avoid the inference that Plaintiff seeks leave to amend precisely in order to deprive the Court of jurisdiction. But whether or not that is the case, the totality of the circumstances here call for denying Plaintiff s motion. Plaintiff s motion for leave to file an amended complaint is therefore DENIED. SO ORDERED. Dated: October 6, 2014 New York, New York 3 Case 1:14-cv-00786-JMF Document 68 Filed 09/24/14 Page 1 of 5 Case 1:14-cv-00786-JMF Document 68 Filed 09/24/14 Page 2 of 5 Case 1:14-cv-00786-JMF Document 68 Filed 09/24/14 Page 3 of 5 Case 1:14-cv-00786-JMF Document 68 Filed 09/24/14 Page 4 of 5 Case 1:14-cv-00786-JMF Document 68 Filed 09/24/14 Page 5 of 5

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.