The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DANIEL DELATTE ET AL. CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS No. 23-5377
LOUISIANA INSURANCE SECTION I
GUARANTY ASSOCIATION ET AL.
ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is a motion1 to remand the above-captioned matter to the 24th
Judicial District Court for Jefferson Parish.2 The motion was filed by plaintiffs Daniel
Delatte and Marla H. Delatte. The only remaining defendant, the Louisiana
Insurance Guaranty Association (“LIGA”) has not yet made an appearance in this
Court.
Pursuant to the federal removal statute, a civil action brought in state court
may be removed to the federal district court embracing the place where such action
is pending so long as the federal courts have original jurisdiction over that action. 28
U.S.C. § 1441(a). “To determine whether jurisdiction is present for removal, [courts]
consider the claims in the state court petition as they existed at the time of removal.”
Manguno v. Prudential Prop. And Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir. 2002).
“Any ‘doubts regarding whether removal jurisdiction is proper should be resolved
1 R. Doc. No. 13.
2 Although the motion states that the action was filed in “the 22nd Judicial District
Court of St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana[,]” the record reflects that it was filed in the
24th Judicial District Court for Jefferson Parish. See generally R. Doc. No. 1 (state-
court petition).
against federal jurisdiction.’” Vantage Drilling Co. v. Hsin-Chi Su, 741 F.3d 535, 537
(5th Cir. 2014) (quoting Acuna v. Brown & Root Inc., 200 F.3d 335, 339 (5th Cir.
2000)).
Wright National Flood Insurance Company (“Wright”), formerly a defendant
in this matter, removed the action to this Court on the ground that Wright
“participates in and issues [standard flood insurance policies] under the National
Flood Insurance Program’s . . . Write-Your-Own Program.”3 The notice of removal
asserted that this Court had original exclusive jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 4072.4 Plaintiffs and Wright subsequently filed a joint motion5 to dismiss Wright as
a defendant, which the Court granted,6 leaving LIGA as the only remaining
defendant.
Accordingly, the only possible basis for this Court to exercise jurisdiction at
this stage is supplemental jurisdiction.7 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), “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.”
3 R. Doc. No. 1, ¶¶ 3–4.
4 Id. ¶ 6.
5 R. Doc. No. 10.
6 R. Doc. No. 11.
7 The notice of removal does not indicate that this Court has jurisdiction on any other
basis.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has explained that its “‘general
rule’ is to decline to exercise jurisdiction over pendent state-law claims when all
federal claims are dismissed or otherwise eliminated from a case prior to trial[.]”
Smith v. Amedisys, 298 F.3d 434, 446–47 (5th Cir. 2002) (quoting Batiste v. Island
Records, Inc., 179 F.3d 217, 227 (1999)). However, this rule is “neither mandatory nor
absolute.” Id. at 447 (quoting Batiste, 179 F.3d at 227). In determining whether to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state-law claims, courts consider the
factors enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and “the factors of judicial economy,
convenience, fairness, and comity.” See id. at 447.
With respect to the § 1367(c) factors, the Court finds that they weigh in favor
of remand. The first factor—whether the state claims raise novel or complex issues of
state law—is neutral. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1). The claims are straightforward
breach of contract claims, though the case will raise additional state-law issues
related to LIGA and its duties to pay covered claims. The second factor—whether the
state claims substantially predominate over the federal claims—weighs in favor of
remand as the only remaining claims are state-law claims. See id. § 1367(c)(2). The
third factor—whether the federal claims have been dismissed—weighs in favor of
remand as the claims against Wright have now been dismissed. See id. § 1367(c)(3).
The fourth factor—whether there are exceptional circumstances or other compelling
reasons for declining jurisdiction—is neutral. See id. § 1367(c)(4). There are no
compelling reasons for either accepting or declining jurisdiction.
Additionally, the Court finds that the factors of judicial economy, convenience,
fairness, and comity weigh in favor of declining supplemental jurisdiction and
remanding plaintiffs’ claims. See Amedisys, 298 F.3d at 447. In particular, LIGA has
not yet made an appearance in this case, so no efforts will be duplicated. Further,
LIGA did not join in the notice of removal filed by Wright. Finally, the state court is
well equipped to address the only remaining claims in this action, which are state-
law claims. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to remand is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-captioned matter is
REMANDED to the 24th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson,
Louisiana for further proceedings.
New Orleans, Louisiana, December 22, 2023.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE