Federal District Court rejects attempt to defeat diversity by conflating multiple residences versus single domicile and by seeking to join non-necessary party.

The defendants, Gonzalez and his employer, FedEx, properly removed this matter from state to federal court based on diversity. The plaintiff pursued multiple options to remand the case back to state court, arguing that Gonzalez had only temporarily relocated to Georgia and that JG Premium Logistics Inc. was a necessary party and must be joined, which would also defeat diversity. The court rejected both arguments. It first cited how Gonzalez provided credible evidence—a lease and enrolling his child in school in Atlanta—while JG Premium Logistics was merely a relevant but far from a necessary party under the law. The court also cited precedent that a permissive joinder will be denied when it serves to defeat diversity and prejudices the defendants. The court, in this conclusion, also noted that it took nine months for the plaintiff to seek to add JG Premium Logistics to the lawsuit. 

^{Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2022 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2022 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}