## Facts

- Grogan, a livestock owner, bought milking equipment that was distributed by Surge, Inc. and installed by Don Carrier Surge, Inc.
- The equipment allegedly permitted electrical current to contact the animals, causing injury to Grogan’s livestock.
- Grogan first sued Surge and Don Carrier in New York state court, believing Surge was the manufacturer.
- Grogan later learned Babson Bros. Co. of Illinois manufactured the equipment and filed a separate state-court action against Babson alleging negligence and breach of warranty.
- Babson removed the Babson-only action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.
- After removal, Grogan sought leave to amend under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15 and 20 to join Surge and Don Carrier as additional defendants, even though they were nondiverse and would defeat diversity.
- Babson opposed, arguing the amendment was sought solely to destroy diversity and force remand.

## Issues

1. Whether a plaintiff in a properly removed diversity case may amend the complaint under Rules 15 and 20 to join nondiverse defendants whose joinder would eliminate diversity jurisdiction.
2. Whether the proposed joinder was proper under Rule 20 (same transaction/occurrence and common questions) and sought in good faith rather than solely to defeat federal jurisdiction.
3. If joinder is permitted and destroys complete diversity, whether the federal court must remand for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

## Decision

- The court granted Grogan leave to amend to add Surge and Don Carrier as defendants.
- The court found the claims against Babson, Surge, and Don Carrier arose from the same transaction or occurrence involving the purchase, distribution, installation, and alleged defect of the milking equipment.
- The court found common questions of law and fact, including defect, causation, and the parties’ respective responsibility.
- The court found no evidentiary basis to conclude Grogan’s sole purpose was to defeat federal jurisdiction; consolidating related claims and avoiding parallel litigation supported good faith.
- Because the added defendants were nondiverse and their joinder destroyed complete diversity, the court remanded the case to state court.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 15(a) favors granting leave to amend when justice so requires; denial is generally tied to undue delay, bad faith, undue prejudice, or futility.
- Rule 20(a) permits joinder of defendants when claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence (or series) and share at least one common question of law or fact.
- A federal court may allow post-removal joinder of nondiverse defendants when joinder is proper and not sought solely to defeat diversity; judicial economy and avoiding multiple suits are relevant considerations.
- Proper joinder of a nondiverse defendant eliminates complete diversity; absent an independent basis for federal jurisdiction, the federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and must remand.

## Conclusion

The court exercised its discretion under Rules 15 and 20 to permit joinder of the distributor and installer in a removed diversity action because the claims were factually connected, presented common questions, and were not shown to be motivated solely by defeating federal jurisdiction; joinder destroyed diversity and required remand to state court.


Grogan v. Babson Bros. Co. of Ill., 101 F.R.D. 697 (N.D.N.Y. 1984)