City of Perth Amboy v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that courts may consider “Tt]he parties’ actions during the period between the filing of the complaint and the motion to amend”
• noting that, had the plaintiff filed an amended pleading adding the non-diverse defendant instead of moving to amend, then “the appropriate analysis would be one of fraudulent joinder”
• concluding same at third step, specifically under fourth Hensgens factor of equitable considerations
• reasoning, at second step, that “Defendant will not suffer any prejudice from litigating state law claims in a state forum’’
• considering delay between filing an answer, when it became necessary from the plaintiffs perspective to assert claims against a new party and motion to join and remand
• “[A]Ithough Plaintiff could bring a separate suit against [non-diverse defendant] in state court,... there is a genuine risk of conflicting findings and rulings.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).