United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
KAMAL RASS, ET AL.
AHA HUTS, LLC, ET AL.
RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
take notice that the attached Magistrate Judge's Report
has been filed with the Clerk of the United States District
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), you have fourteen
(14) days after being served with the attached Report to file
written objections to the proposed findings of fact,
conclusions of law and recommendations therein. Failure to
file written objections to the proposed findings,
conclusions, and recommendations within 14 days after being
served will bar you, except upon grounds of plain error, from
attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual
findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge which
have been accepted by the District Court.
NO EXTENSION OF TIME SHALL BE GRANTED TO FILE WRITTEN
OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT.
JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Supplement and Amend
Petition (“Motion to Amend”). (R. Doc. 12). The
motion is opposed. (R. Docs. 19, 22, 28).
before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Remand. (R.
Doc. 25). The motion is opposed. (R. Docs. 34, 39, 40).
Court considers the foregoing motions together because they
concern the same related issue of whether remand of this
action is warranted.
about August 8, 2018, Kamal Rass, Karimah Ibrahim, and EZ
Link Wireless Inc. (“EZ Link”) (collectively,
“Plaintiffs”) initiated this action in the 19th
Judicial District Court, East Baton Rouge, Parish, naming as
defendants AHA Huts, LLC (“AHA”), United
Specialty Insurance Company (“United”), Pizza Hut
of America, Inc. (“PHA”), and the fictitious
defendants John Doe and ABC Insurance Company (collectively,
“Defendants”). (R. Doc. 1-2,
allege that a shared wall between EZ Link and a Pizza Hut
location developed mold due to a leaky refrigerator on Pizza
Hut's premises. (Petition ¶ 8-9). Among other
things, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are responsible for
the resulting injuries and damages from the mold caused
“by the negligent acts and omissions of Pizza Hut,
individually and/or through their employees, agents,
representatives, and/or subcontractors.” (Petition
¶ 12). Plaintiffs allege that “John Doe was the
manager” of the Pizza Hut location and “as
manager, failed to remedy the . . . hazards, had knowledge of
the vice or defect, and failed to notify the appropriate
parties of same.” (Petition ¶¶ 21-22).
Plaintiffs further allege that AHA and PHA are “liable
for the actions of John Doe under the theory of respondent
superior.” (Petition ¶ 22).
September 12, 2018, United removed the action, asserting that
this Court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1332. (R. Doc. 1). United further asserts that there is
complete diversity between the parties because Plaintiffs are
citizens of Louisiana, United is a citizen of Texas and
Delaware, AHA is a citizen of Pennsylvania and Georgia, and
PHA is a citizen of Delaware and Texas. (R. Doc. 1 at 2).
United further asserts that it is facially apparent that the
amount in controversy requirement is satisfied. (R. Doc. 1 at
October 4, 2018, Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Amend (R.
Doc. 12). Plaintiffs state that the motion is made “to
fix clerical errors in the original petition, to elaborate on
damages sustained or to be sustained . . ., and to address
jurisdiction, citizenship, and domicile issues.” (R.
Doc. 12 at 1). Among other things, Plaintiffs seek leave to
name Damanda Jackson and “Arianna (last name
unknown)” as nondiverse defendants in place of the John
Doe defendant pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. In the proposed pleading, Plaintiffs
assert that the proposed defendants are both citizens of
Louisiana and “managers” of AHA and/or PHA during
the applicable time periods. (R. Doc. 12-2 at 1). In support
of the motion, Plaintiffs represented that AHA, PHA, and
United do not oppose the filing of the proposed amended
pleading. (R. Doc. 12 at 7).
fact, Defendants oppose the Motion to Amend. (R. Doc. 13).
While the defendants do not object to the correction of
clerical errors and the clarification of the scope of
damages, they object to the addition of Damanda Jackson and
“Arianna (last name unknown)” as ...