Readers of MassTortDefense know how important the choice of forum can be for significant product liability and mass tort matters. The differences between federal and state court — perhaps right down the street from each other — can be huge, with differing juror pools, differing procedural rules, differing views on class actions, different methods of selecting the judiciary, etc.
Thus, it is worth making sure a subtle amendment to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which took effect Dec. 1, 2009, does not miss your attention, because of the potential impact it has on removal to federal court.
Prior to the amendments to Rule 15 — which governs amended and supplemental pleadings — a plaintiff could amend the complaint once as a matter of course before any responsive pleading was filed. Responsive pleading came to mean the defendant’s answer, and not a motion to dismiss. E.g., Foster v. DeLuca, 545 F.3d 582 (7th Cir. 2008). Thus, a defendant could eliminate the plaintiff’s right to amend as a matter of course by serving an answer. That is, under the old version of Rule 15, a defendant could prevent amendments designed to eliminate the basis for removal by serving an answer just prior to or along with the filing of the notice of removal. When a plaintiff wanted to amend after the defendant had removed and answered, the plaintiff had to obtain consent or leave of court. So what about the removal, then? Any proposed amendment to the complaint affecting the court’s jurisdiction would trigger a heightened scrutiny of the amendment. E.g., Hensgens v. Deere & Co., 833 F.2d 1179 (5th Cir. 1987). Defendants could argue that the proposed amendment should be rejected on this basis.
The new Rule 15 permits a plaintiff to amend “as a matter of course” even after the defendant has served “a responsive pleading.” A party may file an amended pleading without leave of court within 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a Rule 12 motion, whichever is earlier. After that, a party may file an amended pleading only with leave of court.
That raises the issue for your consideration whether the new ability of the plaintiff to amend “as a matter of course,” even after the defendant has served an answer, permits the plaintiff to make one of those jurisdiction-destroying amendments. One possibility is that courts will look at “matter of course” amendments under the new rule the same way they were analyzed by many courts under the old rule. That is, courts were guided by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e), which states that if after removal the plaintiff seeks to join additional defendants whose joinder would destroy subject matter jurisdiction, the court may deny joinder, or permit joinder and remand the action to the state court. Schur v. L.A. Weight Loss Centers, Inc., 577 F.3d 752, 759 (7th Cir. 2009); Whitworth v. TNT Bestway Transp. Inc., 914 F.Supp. 1434 (E.D.Tex.,1996). Courts, in the motion for leave context and sometimes in the “as of course” context as well, to decide between those two choices, would scrutinize the amendments closely, and due consideration is given to the original defendant’s interest in the choice of forum. Courts examine whether the purpose of the amendment is to defeat federal jurisdiction; how timely/prompt the plaintiff has been in seeking the amendment; whether the plaintiff will be prejudiced if amendment is not allowed; and any other equities. Bailey v. Bayer CropScience L.P., 563 F.3d 302 (8th Cir. 2009).
If this heightened scrutiny is applied to “matter of course” amendments made under the new version of Rule 15, removals may be in less jeopardy when when a plaintiff attempts to amend the complaint post-removal, post-answer “as a matter of course.”