Hulbert Development Co Inc successfully moved to amend its complaint in a way that would eliminate the federal court's diversity jurisdiction over its dispute with Joshua Storage LLC, Joshua Properties LLC, Joshua Prewett, and unnamed defendants. The case involves what appears to be a business dispute between the Arkansas development company and the storage and property entities, though the underlying facts and claims were not detailed in the brief procedural order.
Judge Marshall granted the motions after defendants informally indicated they would not oppose the amendment. "The defendants have informally advised the Court that they don't oppose Hulbert's motions to file a diversity-destroying second amended complaint," Marshall wrote in his order. The judge directed Hulbert to "file its second amended complaint as soon as practicable."
The court made clear that remand would follow swiftly once the amended pleading is filed. Marshall stated that "The Court will remand the case to the Circuit Court of Crittenden County, Arkansas for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), after it does so."
The case was filed in federal court under diversity jurisdiction, which requires complete diversity of citizenship between parties and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. Hulbert's proposed amendment would apparently add a party or change allegations in a way that destroys the complete diversity requirement, forcing the case back to state court where it likely belonged originally.
The defendants' decision not to oppose the diversity-destroying amendment suggests they may prefer litigating in Arkansas state court rather than federal court. Such strategic decisions often reflect considerations about local jury pools, procedural differences, or judicial experience with particular types of disputes.
The case will proceed in the Circuit Court of Crittenden County once the federal court completes the remand process. Diversity-destroying amendments are relatively common when plaintiffs realize they may have better prospects in state court or when the federal forum provides no strategic advantage.