United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
ORDER & REASONS
M. AFRICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
March 1, 2016, plaintiff Tyrone Causey (“Causey”)
sued State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
(“State Farm”), his uninsured motorist and
medical payments coverage carrier, for damages allegedly
suffered in an automobile accident, statutory penalties for
alleged bad faith adjusting of his claim, and attorneys'
fees.Causey filed his original lawsuit in the
Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, and State
Farm timely removed the case to this Court.
the pendency of the litigation, Causey has retained a number
of attorneys. As relevant here, Causey was represented
by Ron A. Austin (“Austin”) of Ron Austin &
Associates (“Austin & Associates”) from
February 8, 2017 to October 5, 2017. During that time, the case
was dismissed without prejudice, after the parties reached a
putative settlement. State Farm, however, was ultimately unable
to consummate its compromise with Causey and, therefore,
filed a motion to enforce the settlement.
and his firm subsequently withdrew from their representation
of Causey, and Kearney Loughlin (“Loughlin”)
enrolled on his behalf. On October 3, 2017, the case was
transferred to this section of the Court, following the
recusal of the previous presiding judge.
undersigned adopted the report and recommendation of the
United States Magistrate Judge, denied the motion to enforce
the settlement, and reopened the case. Soon after,
Austin and Austin & Associates intervened under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 24, seeking attorneys' fees and
costs associated with their prior representation of
7, 2018, the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss all
claims against State Farm. That motion indicated that Causey,
Austin, and Austin & Associates settled all claims
asserted against State Farm for the sum total of $158,
600.00. Of that amount, $96, 897.85 was to be paid to Causey
immediately and $61, 702.15 was to be deposited into the
registry of the Court, the latter amount representing the
disputed amount of attorneys' fees and costs allegedly
owed to Austin, Austin & Associates, and Loughlin. On
June 11, 2018, the Court dismissed all claims against State
Farm with prejudice and ordered State Farm to deposit the
$61, 702.15 into the registry of the Court.
claims against State Farm having been dismissed, the only
remaining matter before the Court is the intervention filed
by Austin and Austin & Associates. For the reasons set
forth below, the Court remands the intervention.
Court's original jurisdiction over the underlying claims
in this case was founded solely on diversity under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332,  which vests the district courts with
original jurisdiction over all civil actions between citizens
of different states where the matter in controversy exceeds
$75, 000, exclusive of interests and costs. In addition to
this grant of original jurisdiction, Congress has permitted
the district courts to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in
certain instances. As relevant here, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a)
Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) or as expressly
provided otherwise by [f]ederal statute, in any civil action
of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the
district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all
other claims that are so related to claims in the action
within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the
same case or controversy under Article III of the United
States Constitution. Such supplemental jurisdiction shall
include claims that involve the joinder or intervention of
Supreme Court has recognized that § 1367(a) “is a
broad grant of supplemental jurisdiction” that may
“extend to claims involving joinder or intervention
of additional parties.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v.
Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 547 (2005).
However, the fact that a claim or intervention satisfies
§ 1367(a) “does not end the inquiry.”
Griffin v. Lee, 621 F.3d 380, 385 (5th Cir. 2010).
This is because the statute “instructs [courts] to
examine § 1367(b) to determine if any of its exceptions
[to the assertion of supplemental jurisdiction] apply.”
Id. (quoting Exxon Mobil, 545 U.S.
at 559-60). Section 1367(b) states:
In any civil action of which the district courts have
original jurisdiction founded solely on section 1332 , the
district courts shall not have supplemental jurisdiction
under subsection (a) . . . over claims by persons . . .
seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24 . . . when
exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such ...