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.

Carter v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co.

United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana

August 20, 2019

MARTIN CARTER
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.

          NOTICE AND ORDER

          ERIN WILDER-DOOMES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         On July 3, 2019, plaintiff, Martin Carter (“Plaintiff”) filed a Petition for Damages (the “Petition”) against State Farm Mutual Insurance Company (“State Farm”) and AmTrust North America (“AmTrust”) for damages allegedly sustained in an August 18, 2017 automobile accident.[1] On August 16, 2019, Republic Underwriters Insurance Company (“Republic”) filed a Notice of Removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.[2] As set forth herein, the Notice of Removal is deficient with respect to allegations of citizenship.[3]

         First, Republic alleges that Plaintiff “[a]s pleaded…is and was a citizen of the State of Louisiana.”[4] However, Plaintiff's Petition only alleges that Plaintiff resides in Louisiana.[5] In order to adequately plead Plaintiff's citizenship, Plaintiff's domicile must be alleged.[6]

         Second, the Notice of Removal provides that “Republic (erroneously named AmTrust North America, Inc.), is and was a foreign insurer with its principal place of business in Dallas, Texas….”[7] This is an insufficient allegation of Republic's citizenship. In the event Republic is a corporation, Republic's principal place of business and state of incorporation must be alleged.[8] In the event Republic is a limited liability company or other type of unincorporated association, Republic must identify each of the members of the association and the citizenship of each member in accordance with the requirements of § 1332(a) and (c).[9] The same requirement applies to any member of a limited liability company or other type of unincorporated association which is also a limited liability company or unincorporated association.[10] Moreover, despite Republic's assertion that Republic, rather than AmTrust, “is the correct entity that should be named in this matter, ”[11]because AmTrust was a named defendant in this action at the time of removal, AmTrust's citizenship must be adequately alleged for this Court to determine whether subject matter jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.[12] The Notice of Removal does not provide any citizenship information regarding AmTrust.

         Finally, Republic also does not adequately allege State Farm's citizenship. Instead, Republic only alleges that State Farm “is and was a foreign insurer with its principal place of business in Bloomington, Illinois….”[13] Again, in the event State Farm is a corporation, State Farm's principal place of business and state of incorporation must be alleged. If State Farm is an unincorporated association, Republic must identify each of the members of the association and the citizenship of each member in accordance with the requirements of § 1332(a) and (c).

         “Federal courts are duty bound to determine their own jurisdiction and may do so sua sponte if necessary.”[14] In order to determine this Court's jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the citizenship of Plaintiff, Republic, State Farm, and Amtrust should be set forth in the Notice of Removal. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that on or before September 3, 2019, Republic Underwriters Insurance Company shall file a motion to substitute the Notice of Removal with a comprehensive Amended Notice of Removal that adequately alleges the citizenship of Martin Carter, Republic Underwriters Insurance Company, State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, and AmTrust North America.

         IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before September 17, 2019, Plaintiff shall file either: (1) a Notice stating that Plaintiff does not dispute that Republic has established the jurisdictional requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1332; or (2) a Motion to Remand.

         The case will be allowed to proceed if jurisdiction is adequately established.

---------

Notes:

[1] R. Doc. 1-2.

[2] R. Doc. 1.

[3] With respect to the amount in controversy, Republic asserts that Plaintiff has provided medical bills that total $66, 973.84. R. Doc. 1, ¶ 16. Although it appears that Plaintiff previously settled with the underlying insurer for policy limits of $15, 000, R. Doc. 1-2, p. 7, ¶ 9, considering the remaining outstanding medicals and the January 18, 2018 email from Plaintiff's ...


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.