Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ramagos v. Regache

United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana

June 4, 2018

LANA RAMAGOS
v.
PIERRE REGACHE, ET AL.

          NOTICE

          RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR., UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Please take notice that the attached Magistrate Judge's Report has been filed with the Clerk of the United States District Court.

         In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), you have fourteen (14) days after being served with the attached Report to file written objections to the proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations therein. Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations within 14 days after being served will bar you, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge which have been accepted by the District Court.

         ABSOLUTELY NO EXTENSION OF TIME SHALL BE GRANTED TO FILE WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT.

         MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

         Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (R. Doc. 5) filed on February 2, 2018. The Motion is opposed. (R. Doc. 7). Plaintiff filed a reply. (R. Doc. 12).

         I. Background

         On or about April 28, 2017, Lana Ramagos (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action in the 18th Judicial District Court, West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, naming as defendants Pierrer Regache, Clarke Road Transport, Inc. (“Clark”), and her husband Travis Ramagos. (R. Doc. 1-4, “Petition”). Plaintiff alleges that she was involved in a motor vehicle collision between a vehicle owned and operated by Mr. Ramagos, and in which Plaintiff was a passenger, and a vehicle by Mr. Regache and owned by Clark. (Petition ¶¶ 3-5). Plaintiff alleges that as a result of the accident she “sustained bodily injuries that required medical attention and treatment by a physician.” (Petition ¶ 6). Plaintiff alleges that both Mr. Regache and Mr. Ramagos “failed to use ordinary care by various acts and omissions . . . each of which singularly or in combination with others, was a proximate cause of the occurrence in question. . . .” (Petition ¶¶ 7-9).

         On May 9, 2017, Mr. Ramagos filed an Answer and Petition in Cross-Claim seeking relief from Mr. Regache and Clarke. (R. Doc. 1-5 at 2-6).

         On December 15, 2017, counsel for Mr. Ramagos provided a medical bill summary indicating that Mr. Ramagos had incurred $174, 079.68 in medical expenses. (R. Doc. 1-6).

         On January 3, 2018, Mr. Regache and Clarke (collectively, the “Removing Defendants”) filed a Notice of Removal, asserting that the Court has diversity jurisdiction over this action. (R. Doc. 1). The Removing Defendants assert that Mr. Ramagos was improperly joined as a defendant in light of La. R.S. 9:291, Louisiana's spousal immunity statute, which precludes Plaintiff from having a right of action against her husband. (R. Doc. 1 at 6-7). In light of the foregoing, the Removing Defendants assert that Mr. Ramagos' consent was not required for removal. (R. Doc. 1 at 7-8).

         The Removing Defendants further assert that there is complete diversity because Plaintiff is a citizen of Louisiana, Mr. Regache is a citizen of Canada, Clarke is a citizen of Canada, and the citizen of Mr. Ramagos (Louisiana) should be ignored. (R. Doc. 1 at 3). The Removing Defendants further assert that in light of Mr. Ramagos' medical expenses, his “claims clearly meet the amount in controversy threshold, ” adding that it was “unclear” at the time of removal “whether the claims of Lana Ramagos do as well.” (R. Doc. 1 at 4). The Removing Defendants assert that the Court should re-align Mr. Ramagos as a plaintiff, find that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied based on his allegations, and exercise “supplemental jurisdiction” over Plaintiff's claims. (R. Doc. 1 at 4-7).

         On February 2, 2018, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Remand. (R. Doc. 5).

         II. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.