BAM’s Desperate Move: Can Naming "John Does" Stop Federal Court?

00:00 Introduction 00:48 Background on Ben’s Move to Federal Court 00:56 The Judge Decides Whether to Add a New Party 02:30 The three things a judge will look at 03:50 The plaintiffs waited too long to add Tyler now 07:51 Conclusion In my last video, we looked at Reckless Ben's strategic decision to remove the lawsuit to federal court. But can the plaintiffs fight back?    • Reckless Ben Flips the Board—Federal Court...   One possibility often discussed after removal is adding a new defendant who destroys diversity jurisdiction. If that defendant is a Utah resident, could the case be sent back to state court? In this video, I explain: • How diversity jurisdiction works after removal. • Whether plaintiffs can simply add a Utah defendant. • The legal standard federal courts apply when deciding whether to allow the amendment. • The factors judges consider in deciding whether to remand a case back to state court. • Why Bricks & Minifigs probably waited too long. As always, this video is based on the public court filings and applicable law. Nothing in this video is legal advice, and all allegations discussed remain allegations unless and until proven in court. If you enjoy in-depth analysis of high-profile litigation and the strategy behind the court filings, consider subscribing so you don't miss future updates. Question for the comments: If you were representing the plaintiffs, would you try to add a Utah defendant and seek remand—or would you keep the case in federal court?