Rukhsanah L. Singh
How Judge Singh decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On diversity-destroying joinder after removal she applies the 28 U.S.C. 1447(e)/Hensgens factors carefully and will permit joinder of a non-diverse employee where the plaintiff has a colorable direct claim and was not dilatory -- respondeat superior does not bar a direct negligence claim against the employee, and a remand-favoring motive does not by itself defeat joinder.
“The Court cannot conclude on this record that Plaintiffs are motivated more by the desire to defeat federal jurisdiction than by the desire to assert a colorable direct claim against Mr. Zaentz.”
Strongly pro-remand under the well-pleaded-complaint rule: a federal question raised only in a counterclaim or defense -- especially one not asserted at the time of removal -- cannot support 'arising under' jurisdiction, and a removing party that lacked an objectively reasonable basis can be hit with 1447(c) fees.
“removal cannot be based on a purported federal question raised in counterclaims, particularly where those counterclaims were not yet even asserted at the time of removal.”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Motion to amend N = 4 |
Granted: 1Granted in part: 2Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to remand N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for attorney fees N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to strike N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court will adopt the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to sua sponte dismiss without prejudice Plaintiffs' NJLAD claim (Count VII) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ... Plaintiffs are to submit their First Amended Complaint by January 13, 2023.”
“removal cannot be based on a purported federal question raised in counterclaims, particularly where those counterclaims were not yet even asserted at the time of removal. ... this Court respectfully recommends that this action be remanded.”
“the Court strains to find that the B&M Defendants had an objectively reasonable basis in removing the underlying state court proceeding ... this Court recommends that Plaintiff's request for the award of fees be granted.”
“the Court exercises its discretion and GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion ... joinder of Mr. Zaentz is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e).”
“Plaintiffs' application to file a second amended complaint is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. Should Plaintiffs wish to pursue their misappropriation of trade secrets claims, they are directed to file that complaint as a separate action in this Court, with a designation that it is related to the instant case.”
“the undersigned respectfully recommends that the Court grant Platte River's Motion to Strike the fraud affirmative defense asserted in the MCS Defendants' Nineteenth Affirmative Defense.”
“the undersigned recommends that the Court deny the MCS Defendants' request, in the alternative, for leave to amend.”