In determining the third Hensgens factor, courts consider whether the diverse defendant will be unable to satisfy a future judgment and whether the plaintiff could recover against the proposed nondiverse defendant. Darr v. Amerisure Ins. Co., No. 16-232, 2016 WL 5110267, at *8 (M.D. La. Aug. 31, 2016) (citing Gallegos v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Indiana, No. 9-2777, 2009 WL 4730570, at *5 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 7, 2009)). “[C]onsiderations of cost, judicial efficiency and possible inconsistency of results militate in favor of not requiring plaintiff to prosecute two separate claims in two forums when both arise from the same set of facts and circumstances.”