Fountain v. Circle K Stores Inc.

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
FRANCES FOUNTAIN
VERSUS
CIRCLE K STORES, INC. AND
JANE DOE
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 25-2292
SECTION: "E" (3)
ORDER AND REASONS
Plaintiff, Frances Fountain, filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint.1 No
opposition has been filed. Having considered the submissions and arguments of
counsel, the record, and the applicable law, the Court grants the Motion for Leave to
Amend Complaint.
I. 	Background
On July 22, 2025, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Circle K Stores, Inc. (“Circle
K”) and a “Jane Doe” employee based on injuries that resulted from a tripping
incident. The unnamed employee was the only one alleged to be working at the time.
On November 10, 2025, Circle K removed the lawsuit.
On November 13, 2025, discovery responses identified Semaj Vance as the
employee working at the time of Plaintiff’s accident. On December 19, 2025, Plaintiff
filed the instant motion seeking to amend her Complaint to list Semaj Vance as a
properly named defendant. Plaintiff alleges that Vance is a citizen of Louisiana such
1 R. Doc. 10.
Case 2:25-cv-02292-SM-EJD Document 12 Filed 01/05/26 Page 1 of 3

2
that amendment would defeat diversity jurisdiction. No scheduling order has been
entered, and there is no trial date.
II. 	Law and Analysis
Generally, Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs proposed
amendments to pleadings, and Rule 20 governs joinder. When amendment would
destroy subject matter jurisdiction, however, 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e) applies. Section
1447(e) states: “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.” Courts exercising
discretion under § 1447(e) must more closely “scrutinize” amendment than they
would under Rule 15(a) and Rule 20. Hensgens v. Deere & Co., 833 F.2d 1179, 1182
(5th Cir. 1987).
In Hensgens, the Fifth Circuit provided a nonexclusive list of relevant factors
for courts to consider when exercising that discretion:
In this situation, justice requires that the district court consider a
number of factors to balance the defendant's interests in maintaining
the federal forum with the competing interests of not having parallel
lawsuits. For example, the court should consider[: 1] the extent to which
the purpose of the amendment is to defeat federal jurisdiction, [2]
whether plaintiff 	has 	been 	dilatory in asking 	for amendment, 	[3]
whether plaintiff will be significantly injured if amendment is not
allowed, and [4] any other factors bearing on the equities. The district
court, with input from the defendant, should then balance the equities
and decide whether amendment should be permitted. If it permits the
amendment of the nondiverse defendant, it then must remand to the
state court. If the amendment is not allowed, the federal court maintains
jurisdiction.
Case 2:25-cv-02292-SM-EJD Document 12 Filed 01/05/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Id. Each of these factors supports allowing amendment in this case. See Trabelsi v.
Lab'y Corp. of Am. Holdings, No. CV 24-328, 2024 WL 3488259, at *4 (E.D. La. July
19, 2024) (citing cases), recognized, No. CV 24-328, 2024 WL 3497859 (E.D. La. July
22, 2024) (remanding for lack of subject matter jurisdiction given that amendment
destroyed complete diversity). Moreover, the motion is unopposed.
III. 	Conclusion
Accordingly, for these reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Rec.
Doc. 10) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s proposed pleading shall be filed in the record.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 5 th day of January, 2026.
___________________________________
EVA J. DOSSIER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-02292-SM-EJD Document 12 Filed 01/05/26 Page 3 of 3