Harrah’s North Kansas City
KANSAS CITY — A federal judge has ordered a personal injury lawsuit against Harrah’s North Kansas City and one of its employees returned to Missouri state court after determining that the addition of a non-diverse defendant eliminated federal diversity jurisdiction. The ruling also rejected the defendants’ attempt to have the case dismissed.
In an order entered June 3, U.S. District Judge Roseann A. Ketchmark denied a motion to dismiss filed by Harrah’s North Kansas City and employee Bruce Ostroff and granted the plaintiff Debra Sorrells’ motion to remand the case to the Clay Circuit Court.
The judge concluded that the federal court no longer had subject-matter jurisdiction because both Sorrells and Ostroff are Missouri citizens.
The lawsuit stems from an incident in which Sorrells alleges she suffered personal injuries after a Harrah’s employee exited a restroom at speed, causing the restroom door to strike her knee.
The case was removed to federal court on Oct. 13, 2025, by Harrah’s North Kansas City, which at the time was the sole named defendant.
After the case arrived in federal court, Harrah’s moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
Sorrells subsequently sought permission to amend her pleadings to add the previously unidentified employee, initially identified as “John Doe,” as a defendant and to include additional factual allegations and claims.
Harrah’s opposed that request on procedural grounds, arguing that Sorrells had not been diligent and had delayed seeking the amendment. The court nevertheless granted leave to amend.
Sorrells did not file the amended complaint by the deadline established by the court.
Harrah’s then moved to dismiss the case for failure to prosecute. Less than a week later, Sorrells sought leave to file a second amended complaint that identified the employee by name as Bruce Ostroff and included allegations regarding his Missouri residency and citizenship.
Harrah’s again opposed the amendment on procedural grounds related to missed deadlines. The court granted the request and directed Sorrells to file the proposed second amended complaint.
The second amended complaint, filed March 31, named Ostroff as a defendant and asserted negligence claims against both Ostroff and Harrah’s, along with direct negligence and premises liability claims against Harrah’s.
The complaint stated that Sorrells resides in Jackson County and that Ostroff is a Missouri resident and citizen.
In seeking dismissal, the defendants argued that Sorrells exceeded the scope of the court’s order by filing a substantially revised pleading rather than merely identifying the previously unnamed employee.
The court treated the motion as one brought under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows dismissal for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders.
Ketchmark found the argument unpersuasive, concluding that Sorrells had filed the second amended complaint exactly as approved by the court and that Harrah’s had multiple opportunities to challenge the substance of the amendments but failed to do so.
The order stated that the motion to dismiss was “unfounded” and denied it.
Turning to the jurisdictional issue, the court found that the second amended complaint destroyed complete diversity because both the plaintiff and Ostroff are Missouri citizens.
Harrah’s argued that the court should closely scrutinize the post-removal addition of a non-diverse defendant and deny remand.
The judge rejected that argument, noting that the purpose of the amendment was openly disclosed and that Harrah’s did not object on jurisdictional grounds when the amendment was proposed.
The court also analyzed whether joinder of Ostroff would have been appropriate even if it reconsidered its earlier decision.
Applying factors established by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, the judge found that Sorrells did not seek to add Ostroff solely to defeat federal jurisdiction, that she was not dilatory in seeking the amendment after learning his identity, and that Missouri law recognizes circumstances under which an employee may be personally liable for a tort committed within the scope of employment.
The court found that the first two factors weighed significantly in favor of permitting the amendment, while the third factor was neutral.
Because the operative complaint includes a non-diverse defendant, Ketchmark concluded that the federal court lacks diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The court therefore granted Sorrells’ motion to remand and ordered the case returned to Clay Circuit Court.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri case number: 4:25-cv-00799
