, this cost is insufficient to demonstrate that [plaintiff] will be significantly injured.” Nieves v. John Bean Techs. Corp., 2014 WL 2587577, at *3 (emphasis in original) (N.D. Tex. June 10, 2014) (Fitzwater, C.J.) (citing Anaya v. Schindler Elevator Corp., 2011 WL 1807786, at *3 (N.D. Tex. May 12, 2011) (Fitzwater, C.J.) (noting that denying motion to join did not deprive plaintiff of all of her remedies against non-diverse potential defendant))
"The court must therefore balance the original defendant's interest in maintaining a federal forum with the competing interest in avoiding potentially parallel litigation." Anaya v. Schindler Elevator Corp., 2011 WL 1807786, at *1 (N.D. Tex. May 12, 2011) (Fitzwater, C.J.) (citation omitted). 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e) provides that "[i]f after removal the plaintiff seeks to join additional defendants whose joinder would destroy subject matter jurisdiction, the court may deny joinder, or permit joinder and remand the action to the State court."
"The court must therefore balance the original defendant's interest in maintaining a federal forum with the competing interest in avoiding potentially parallel litigation." Anaya v. Schindler Elevator Corp., 2011 WL 1807786, at *1 (N.D. Tex. May 12, 2011) (Fitzwater, C.J.) (citation omitted). 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e): "If after removal the plaintiff seeks to join additional defendants whose joinder would destroy subject matter jurisdiction, the court may deny joinder, or permit joinder and remand the action to the State court."