The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CATRINA BROWN, ET AL. CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO: 19-10634
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE SECTION: "A" (2)
CO., ET AL.
ORDER AND REASONS
The following motion is before the Court: Motion to Remand (Rec. Doc. 10) filed
by Plaintiff Catrina Brown. Defendant Liberty Mutual County Insurance Co. (“Liberty”)
opposes the motion. The motion, submitted for consideration on January 22, 2020, is
before the Court on the briefs without oral argument.
Plaintiffs Catrina Brown and Renata Brown filed suit against Liberty in state court
to recover payments under a UM policy. Plaintiffs were passengers in a vehicle involved
in an automobile accident in New Orleans, Louisiana. Liberty removed the suit to this
Court invoking diversity jurisdiction. It is undisputed that the Court’s original subject
matter jurisdiction was grounded on Renata Brown’s claim and that the Court had
supplemental jurisdiction (not original jurisdiction) over Catrina Brown’s claim. (Rec.
Doc. 1, Notice of Removal ¶ 4).
Liberty and Renata Brown settled. On January 9, 2020, Renata Brown was
dismissed from this suit as a plaintiff. (Rec. Doc. 14).
Catrina Brown (“Brown”) urges the Court to decline to exercise jurisdiction over
her claim for damages. Brown asserts that her claim is not valued at more than $50,000
Page 1 of 3
much less the jurisdictional threshold for a federal court. (Rec. Doc. 10-1, Memorandum
at 2).
Liberty argues inter alia that with trial scheduled for March 16, 2020, the Court
should keep the case.1
A district court’s decision whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after
dismissing the claim over which it had original jurisdiction is purely discretionary.
Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. §
1367(a), (c)). The general rule in this circuit is that a court should decline to exercise
jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when all federal law claims are eliminated
before trial. IntegraNet Phys. Res., Inc. v. Tex. Indep. Prov., LLC, 945 F.3d 232, 241 (5th
Cir. 219) (citing Brookshire Bros. Holding, Inc. v. Dayco Prods., Inc., 554 F.3d 595, 602
(5th Cir. 2009)).
This Court has not invested a significant amount of its judicial resources in this
litigation. The Court’s case manager conducted a scheduling conference by telephone
and the instant motion to remand is the first contested motion that the Court has been
called upon to address. The docket sheet does not indicate that the assigned magistrate
judge has been called upon to work on this case. Any discovery and expert reports that
the parties might have obtained in accordance with this Court’s scheduling order can be
used in the case once it is remanded to state court.
Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons;
1 At this time the Court has a criminal matter scheduled for that same date that would prime the
civil trial in this matter.
Page 2 of 3
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Remand (Rec. Doc. 10) filed by Plaintiff
Catrina Brown is GRANTED. This matter is REMANDED to the state court from which it
was removed.
January 29, 2020
C\
ARN
AY ZANEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICE4UDGE
Page 3 of 3