Sims v. USAA General Indemnity Company, et al, No. 2:2019cv11439 - Document 8 (E.D. La. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS - IT IS ORDERED that the Court's ruling on Plaintiff's 6 Motion to Remand is DEFERRED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are given leave to conduct limited jurisdictional discovery by deposing Rashad Ketchens and S ylvia Workman concerning the sequence of events during the accident which is the subject of this action. Plaintiff is given leave to file a supplemental memorandumin support of his motion to remand, with summary judgment-type evidence attached as exhibits, on or before October 7, 2019. Defendant is given leave to file a supplemental memorandum in opposition to Plaintiff's motion to remand on or before October 14, 2019. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn)

Download PDF
Sims v. USAA General Indemnity Company, et al Doc. 8 U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT COU RT EASTERN D ISTRICT OF LOU ISIAN A ALFRED SIMS, Plain tiff CIVIL ACTION VERSU S N O. 19 -114 3 9 U SAA GEN ERAL IN D EMN ITY COMPAN Y, ET AL., D e fe n d an ts SECTION : “E”( 4 ) ORD ER AN D REAS ON S Before the Court is a m otion to rem and filed by Plaintiff Alfred Sim s. 1 Defendant J am es River Insurance Co. (J am es River) opposes this m otion. 2 BACKGROU N D This case arises from a four-vehicle rear-en d collision. 3 According to Plaintiff, on J uly 9, 20 18 , Rashai Sm ooth rear-ended a stopped vehicle operated by Rashad Ketchens. 4 This pushed Ketchen s’ vehicle into a vehicle operated by Sylvia Workm an, and Workm an’s vehicle then hit Plaintiff’s vehicle. 5 Plaintiff’s vehicle was insured by Lyndon Southern and J am es River, Workm an’s by GEICO, Ketchens’ by Progressive, and Sm ooth’s by USAA General Indem nity Com pany. 6 On February 5, 20 19, Plaintiff filed suit against his insurers and all three drivers (Sm ooth, Ketchens, and Workm an) along with their respective insurers. 7 All defendants 1 R. Doc. 6. R. Doc. 7. 3 R. Doc. 1 ¶ 2. 4 Id. 5 Id. 6 Id. ¶¶ 6– 9. 7 Id. ¶ 1. 2 1 Dockets.Justia.com but Rashai Sm ooth were served. 8 Defendant J am es River sought rem oval based on diversity on J uly 1, 20 19. 9 Plaintiff is a citizen of Louisiana. 10 The insurers are all citizens of states other than Louisiana. 11 The three defendant drivers, however, are all Louisiana citizens. 12 On J uly 31, 20 19, Plaintiff filed a m otion to rem and this case to state court because the parties lack com plete diversity. 13 Defendant J am es River opposes this m otion on grounds that the non-diverse defendants were im properly join ed. 14 LEGAL STAN D ARD “Federal courts are courts of lim ited jurisdiction; without jurisdiction conferred by statute, they lack the power to adjudicate claim s.”15 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, federal district courts have original jurisdiction over all civil m atters in which the plaintiffs are citizen s of different states from the defendants and the am ount in controversy exceeds $ 75,0 0 0 . 16 Only if these requirem ents are m et m ay a defendant rem ove the action to federal court. 17 There is an exception to this com plete diversity rule, however. If a nondiverse defen dant has been “im properly join ed,” a defendant m ay nonetheless rem ove the action, and the im properly joined defendant’s citizenship is disregarded for purposes of 8 R. Doc. 6-1 ¶ 2. R. Doc. 1. 10 Id. ¶ 4. 11 Id. ¶¶ 6– 10 . 12 Id. 13 R. Doc. 6. 14 R. Doc. 7. 15 In re FEMA Trailer Form aldehy de Products Liab. Litig. (Miss. Plaintiffs), 668 F.3d 281, 286 (5th Cir. 20 12). 16 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 17 See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 9 2 determ ining whether the federal court has diversity jurisdiction. 18 The rem oving party bears the burden of showing subject-m atter jurisdiction exists and rem oval is proper. 19 Defendants in this case do not dispute Plaintiff, Ketchens, and Workm an are all Louisiana citizens. 20 Sm ooth also is a Louisiana citizen, but because Sm ooth had not been served at the tim e of rem oval, Sm ooth’s citizenship does not defeat diversity. 21 The presen ce of defendants Ketchens and Workm an, however, if properly joined, defeats com plete diversity of citizenship and requires rem and to state court. Defendant J am es River’s only potential basis for diversity jurisdiction is that Ketchens and Workm an were im properly join ed. 22 LAW AN D AN ALYSIS In cases rem oved based on diversity jurisdiction and im proper joinder, the rem oving party m ust show either: “(1) actual fraud in the pleading of jurisdictional facts, or (2) inability of the plaintiff to establish a cause of action against the non-diverse party in state court.”23 A party claim ing im proper joinder bears a heavy burden of proof. 24 Defendant J am es River does not assert any fraud in the pleadings in this case. J am es River asserts only that Plaintiff has no possible cause of action against the non-diverse defendants. 25 “The test for im proper joinder where there is no allegation of actual fraud is whether the defendant has dem onstrated that there is no possibility of recovery by the 18 Flagg v. Stry ker Corp., 819 F.3d 132, 136 (5th Cir. 20 16) (en banc). See Manguno v. Prudential Property & Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720 , 723 (5th Cir. 20 0 2). 20 R Doc. 1 ¶¶ 5– 8 . 21 Harvey v. Shelter Ins. Co., No. CIV.A. 13-392, 20 13 WL 1768658, at * 1 (E.D. La. Apr. 24, 20 13). 22 R. Doc. 1, at 4. 23 Travis v. Irby , 326 F.3d 644, 646– 47 (5th Cir. 20 0 3) (citing Griggs v. State Farm Lloy ds, 181 F.3d 694, 698 (5th Cir. 1999)). 24 McDonal v. Abbott Labs., 40 8 F.3d 177, 183 (5th Cir. 20 0 5). 25 R. Doc. 7, at 2. 19 3 plaintiff against an in-state defendant.”26 “In determ ining the validity of an allegation of im proper joinder, the district court m ust construe factual allegations, resolve contested factual issues, and resolve am biguities in the controlling state law in the plaintiff’s favor.”27 “The court m ay conduct a Rule 12(b)(6)-type analysis, looking initially at the allegations of the com plaint to determ ine whether the com plaint states a claim under state law again st the in-state defendant.”28 While the standard for evaluating a claim of im proper joinder is sim ilar to the standard used when evaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) m otion for failure to state a claim , the scope of the Court’s inquiry is broader than it would be with a Rule 12(b)(6) m otion; the Court will not “pre-try” the case, but the Court m ay, in its discretion, “pierce the pleadings” under certain circum stances an d consider sum m ary judgm ent type evidence to determ in e whether the plaintiff’s claim has a factual basis. 29 This sum m ary inquiry is “appropriate only to identify the presence of discrete an d undisputed facts that would preclude plaintiff’s recovery” against any non-diverse defendant. 30 “[T]he inability to m ake the requisite decision in a sum m ary m anner itself points to an inability of the rem oving party to carry its burden.”31 Plaintiff’s petition alleges Ketchens and Workm an are liable for failing to stop before causing the accident and failing to m aintain control of their vehicles. 32 According to Defendant J am es River, Ketchens and Workm an were not m oving at the tim e of the accident. 33 In support, J am es River offers Ketchens’ and Workm an’s respon ses to 26 Rodrigue v. Continental Ins. Co., No. 14-1797, 20 14 WL 4999465, at *2 (E.D. La. Oct. 7, 20 14) (citing Sm allw ood v. Ill. Cent. R .R. Co., 385 F.3d 568, 573 (5th Cir. 20 0 4)). 27 Id. (citing Burden v. Gen . Dy nam ics Corp., 60 F.3d 213, 216 (5th Cir. 1995)). 28 Sm allw ood, 385 F.3d at 573. 29 Ross v. Citifinancial, Inc., 344 F.3d 458 , 461 (5th Cir. 20 0 3). 30 Sm allw ood, 385 F.3d at 573– 74. 31 Id. at 574. 32 R. Doc. 1-1 ¶¶ 13– 14. 33 R. Doc. 1 ¶ XV. 4 requests for adm ission in which they adm it they were stopped at the tim e of the collision. 34 Plaintiff argues the responses are not verified, 35 and the record shows the responses were signed by Ketchens’ and Workm an’s attorneys and not by them . 36 Plaintiff requests an opportunity to depose Ketchen s and Workm an to determ ine whether their vehicles were stopped and to determ ine other relevant facts concerning the sequen ce of events during the accident. 37 “When subject m atter jurisdiction is challenged, a court has authority to resolve factual disputes, an d m ay devise a m ethod to . . . m ak[e] a determ ination as to jurisdiction, ‘which m ay include considering affidavits, allowing further discovery, hearing oral testim ony, [or] conducting an evidentiary hearing.’”38 “The Court possesses a substantial am ount of discretion when addressing requests for jurisdictional discovery.”39 Because the propriety of joining Ketchens and Workm an m ay be determ ined by a lim ited inquiry into the sequen ce of events occurring during of the accident, the Court agrees with Plaintiff’s request for discovery and finds it appropriate to reserve judgm ent on the question of im proper joinder an d allow lim ited jurisdictional discovery. CON CLU SION IT IS ORD ERED that the Court’s ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion to Rem and 40 is D EFERRED . 34 R. Doc. 1-2; R. Doc. 1-3. R. Doc. 6-1 ¶ 16. 36 R. Doc. 1-2; R. Doc. 1-3. 37 R. Doc. 6-1 ¶ 16. 38 Turner Bros. Crane & Rigging, L.L.C. v. Kingboard Chem . Holding Ltd., No. 0 6-8 8-A, 20 0 7 WL 2848154, at *2 (M.D. La. Sept. 24, 20 0 7) (quoting Moran v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 27 F.3d 169, 172 (5th Cir. 1994)). 39 Bry ant v. Holder, 80 9 F. Supp. 2d 563, 571 (S.D. Miss. 20 11) (citing Seiferth v. Helicopteros Atuneros, Inc., 472 F.3d 266, 276– 77 (5th Cir. 20 0 6). 40 R. Doc. 6. 35 5 IT IS FU RTH ER ORD ERED that the parties are given leave to conduct lim ited jurisdictional discovery by deposing Rashad Ketchen s and Sylvia Workm an concerning the sequence of events during the accident which is the subject of this action. Plaintiff is given leave to file a supplem ental m em orandum in support of his m otion to rem and, with sum m ary judgm ent-type evidence attached as exhibits, on or before Octo be r 7, 2 0 19 . Defendant is given leave to file a supplem ental m em orandum in opposition to Plaintiff’s m otion to rem and on or before Octo be r 14 , 2 0 19 . N e w Orle a n s , Lo u is ian a, th is 3 rd d ay o f Se p te m be r, 2 0 19 . ______________________ _________ SU SIE MORGAN U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT J U D GE 6

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.