Preview:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION JAMES TRICKEY, Plaintiff, vs. KAMAN INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES CORP., et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 1:09-CV-00026-SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's March 15, 2011 motion to reconsider (#76) the Court's July 7, 2009 order dismissing Ken Higgins ("Higgins") as a defendant in this case (#14). The defense filed a response (#86) on April 15, 2011, and plaintiff did not reply. Plaintiff requests that the Court reinstate Higgins as a defendant in light of circumstances which may have changed since the Court's July 7, 2009 order. Should the Court proceed to reinstate Higgins as a defendant in this case, complete diversity may be defeated and the case necessarily remanded to state court. I. Prior Order Dismissing Defendant Higgins Plaintiff originally filed this cause of action in the Circuit Court of Cape Girardeau County on February 6, 2009, alleging that plaintiff's former employer, defendant Kaman Industrial Technologies Corp. ("Kaman") and two employees of Kaman, defendants Tom Caputo and Ken Higgins, violated the Missouri Human Rights Act ("MHRA") by discriminating against plaintiff based on his age. Defendant Kaman is a Connecticut corporation with its principal place

1

of business in Connecticut, defendant Caputo is a resident of Indiana, and both defendant Higgins and plaintiff are residents of Missouri. Defendants filed a Notice of Removal (#1) on March 19, 2009, claiming that because defendant Higgins was not an "employer" within the meaning of the MHRA, he could not be a defendant in the suit. Defendants further claimed that because defendant Higgins was a Missouri resident, he had been fraudulently and improperly joined for the sole purpose of defeating diversity jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C.

Download 8338.pdf

Missouri Law