The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MICHAEL DANOS, ET AL. CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 22-1314
SOUTHERN FIDELITY INSURANCE SECTION “R” (1)
COMPANY, ET AL.
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to remand this
matter to the 24th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson.1
For the following reasons, the Court grants plaintiffs’ motion.
I. BACKGROUND
This is a property insurance dispute arising from damage caused
by Hurricane Ida in 2021.2 Plaintiffs commenced this action in the 24th
Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson against Southern
Fidelity Insurance Company (“Southern Fidelity”).3 Southern Fidelity
removed this case on May 12, 2022 on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.4
1 R. Doc. 17.
2 See generally R. Doc. 1-2.
3 See generally R. Doc. 1.
4 R. Doc. 1.
Subsequently, plaintiffs’ claims against Southern Fidelity were stayed
because Southern Fidelity was declared insolvent and placed into
liquidation by the Second Judicial Circuit Court in Leon County,
Florida.5 On November 28, 2022, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
adding the Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association (“LIGA”) as the
defendant in this case.6 Now, plaintiffs move to remand this case
because LIGA’s presence destroys complete diversity.7 Plaintiffs’
motion is unopposed.8 The Court considers the motion below.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
A defendant may generally remove a civil action filed in state court
if the federal court has original jurisdiction over the action. See 28
U.S.C. § 1441(a). The removing party bears the burden of showing that
federal jurisdiction exists. See Allen v. R & H Oil & Gas Co., 63 F.3d
1326, 1335 (5th Cir. 1995). In assessing whether removal was
appropriate, the Court is guided by the principle, grounded in notions
5 R. Doc. 8.
6 R. Doc. 12.
7 R. Doc. 17.
8 R. Doc. 17-1 at 2.
of comity and the recognition that federal courts are courts of limited
jurisdiction, that removal statutes should be strictly construed. See,
e.g., Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins., 276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th
Cir. 2002); Neal v. Kawasaki Motors Corp., No. 95-668, 1995 WL
419901, at *2 (E.D. La. July 13, 1995). Though the Court must remand
the case to state court if at any time before the final judgment it appears
that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the Court’s jurisdiction is fixed
as of the time of removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Doddy v. Oxy USA, Inc.,
101 F.3d 448, 456 (5th Cir. 1996).
For diversity jurisdiction to exist, the amount in controversy must
exceed $75,000, and there must be complete diversity between
plaintiffs and defendants. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Owen Equip. &
Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373 (1978). Having a plaintiff and
a defendant who are citizens of the same state ordinarily destroys
complete diversity. See McLaughlin v. Miss. Power Co., 376 F.3d 344,
353 (5th Cir. 2004).
II. DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs move to remand on the grounds that plaintiffs’ addition
of LIGA—a Louisiana citizen for jurisdictional purposes—as a defendant
in this case vitiates the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. At the outset,
the Court notes that defendants do not oppose the motion to remand.
“This alone provides sufficient grounds to remand.” Brown v. Heintz,
No. CV 16-13697, 2017 WL 604034, at *2 (E.D. La. Feb. 15, 2017)
(collecting cases). But remand is also warranted for the reasons set forth
in plaintiffs’ motion. LIGA is an unincorporated association and “has
the citizenship for diversity purposes of each of its constituent member
insurers.” Temple Drilling Co. v. La. Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 946 F.2d 390,
394 (5th Cir. 1991). Multiple sections of this Court have remanded cases
because LIGA has constituent member insurers based in Louisiana. See,
e.g., Soza v. S. Fid. Ins. Co., No. 22-985, 2023 WL 315948, at *1 n.3 (E.D.
La. Jan. 19, 2023) (Ashe, J.); 14th St. Properties, LLC v. S. Fid. Ins. Co.,
No. CV 22-1593, 2023 WL 416317, at *1 (E.D. La. Jan. 26, 2023) (Brown,
C.J.). Here, LIGA does not contest that it is a citizen of Louisiana for
jurisdictional purposes. Accordingly, the Court grants plaintiffs’
motion.
Ill. CONCLUSION
For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED.
The Court hereby REMANDS this matter to the 24th Judicial District
Court for the Parish of Jefferson.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this__14th day of April, 2023.
derek Varver_
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE