Mosby v. ALPS Property & Casualty Insurance Company, et al, No. 3:2015cv00489 - Document 6 (E.D. Va. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. It is so ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 9/14/2015. (sbea, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Mosby v. ALPS Property & Casualty Insurance Company, et al Doc. 6 SEP I 4 2015 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division U CLERK. U.S. DISTRICT COURT RICHMOND. VA DIANE MOSBY, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. V. ALPS PROPERTY 3:15-CV-489 & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY d/b/a Attorneys Liability Protection Society, A Risk Retention Group, et al., Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION This & matter CASUALTY (ECF will No. be is before INSURANCE 4.) For the the court COMPANY'S on MOTION reasons that DEFENDANT TO REALIGN follow. ALPS PROPERTY THE PARTIES Defendant's motion GRANTED. BACKGROUND This is a declaratory judgment action, Circuit Court for the City of Richmond. originating in the (ECF No. 1-1.) This action stems from an underlying tort suit brought by Plaintiff Diane Mosby ("Massie") and breach declaration ("Mosby") against Defendant and the Massie Law Firm, of that contract. Defendant In P.C. this Joseph for action, ALPS Property Massie III legal malpractice Mosby & Casualty seeks a Insurance Dockets.Justia.com Company t/Y/s.f Attorneys {"ALPS") is obligated, pursuant to an insurance policy issued to Massie by ALPS, Liability Protection Society, Inc.^ to provide liability coverage and a defense to Massie in the underlying tort action. ALPS timely removed the declaratory action to this Court on August 18, 2015. {ECF No. jurisdiction as its basis corporation Id. with its 1.) for ALPS removal. principal Mosby and Massie are both place asserts Id. of natural diversity ALPS is a business persons in Montana Montana. and citizens of Virginia; the Massie Law Firm is a Virginia corporation with its principal place August 25, of business Richmond, Virginia. Id. On ALPS moved to realign Massie and the Massie Law Firm as party-plaintiffs, Law Firm share a (ECF No. in arguing that Mosby, common interest in Massie, the and the Massie present litigation.^ 5.) DISCUSSION Under 28 jurisdiction U.S.C. over states where the § civil 1332, actions amount this between Court has citizens in controversy exceeds original of different $75,000. Under ^ ALPS was incorrectly identified in Mosby's complaint as "ALPS Property & Casualty Company d/b/a Attorneys Liability Protection Society, A Risk Retention Group." ^ The time opposition Because for filing having been this jurisdiction, pleadings. matter responses filed affects has expired from the this Court's without remaining subject any parties. matter the Court nonetheless decides this motion on ALPS' 28 U.S.C. be § 1441(b), removed to actions originally filed in state court may federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction only if none of "the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought." However, determining the Court is permitted to realign the parties when whether particular case. 69 and (1941). arrange Dawson parties v. The test" for according Columbia Ave. Fourth Circuit determining Palisades Collections LLC v. 2008). diversity jurisdiction Indianapolis v. Chase Mat^1 Bank, the (1905). purpose is in 314 U.S. The court must their Saving 63, sides in the Fund, 197 U.S. adopted has whether Shorts, first to the "principal to 552 realign F.3d 327, determine "the the 1789, parties. 337 (4th Cir. primary issue controversy," and then must align the parties accordingly. at a It is the court's duty to "look beyond the pleadings dispute." 179 there in Id. 337. Mosby's primary purpose in filing the present action is to obtain a declaration that ALPS will be liable for any judgment that Mosby obtains against Massie and the Massie Law Firm in the underlying tort action. of this Massie, the dispute: the Massie interests of a ALPS and Massie are on opposite sides finding Law ALPS. Firm, As of coverage and Mosby, this Court will but is be favorable for clearly against stated in a closely analogous case and Massie] in earlier the this underlying present coverage dispute, [Mosby and Massie] favor." at *2 Smith v. (E.D. "any tort dispute action is between secondary Nationwide Mut. Va. Jan. of Massie and the as Mosby's, [Mosby to the and it appears to the Court that both would benefit from a declaration in interests same year, 27, the Fire Ins. 2015). Massie Massie 2015 WL 364585, Therefore, Law and Co., the Firm in Massie [Mosby's] because this Law the action Firm are will be PROPERTY & realigned as party-plaintiffs. CONCLUSION For CASUALTY the foregoing INSURANCE reasons, COMPANY'S DEFENDANT MOTION ALPS TO THE REALIGN PARTIES be GRANTED. It is so ORDERED. /s/ Robert E, Payne Senior United States District Judge Richmond, Virginia Date: September , 2015 shall
]]>
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.
