The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CHRISTOPHER PHILLIPS CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 24-65
NICHOLAS BOULET, ET AL. SECTION “R” (1)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is defendants’ unopposed motion to remand.1 For the
following reasons, the Court denies the motion without prejudice.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, Nicholas Boulet, filed suit in state court relating to a car
accident allegedly involving himself and defendant Nicholas Boulet.2
Plaintiff listed Nicholas Boulet, Tami Boulet, Farmers Insurance Exchange,
and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company as defendants.3 On
January 8, 2024, Nicholas Boulet, Tami Boulet, and Farmers Insurance
Exchange filed a petition for removal, asserting this Court had jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.4 In support of their assertion of diversity
1 R. Doc. 27.
2 R. Doc. 1-4 at 1.
3 Id. State Farm has since been dismissed as a party. R. Doc. 21.
4 R. Doc. 1.
jurisdiction, defendants stated that the domiciles of Nicholas Boulet, Tami
Boulet, and Farmers Insurance Exchange are California, and that Plaintiff’s
domicile is Louisiana.5 Defendants also asserted that the amount in
controversy requirement was met.6 On December 11, 2024, Farmers
Insurance Exchange filed its Corporate Disclosure Statement, stating that it
“is a foreign insurer and corporation, incorporated in 1928, domiciled . . .
[in] California, and a citizen of the State of California with its principal place
of business in the State of California.”7 On April 14, 2025, Defendants moved
the Court to remand this action to state court.8 Defendants now argue that
the parties agreed to remand the case, but they provide no rationale for
remand.9
II. LAW AND DISCUSSION
Unless a federal statute expressly provides otherwise, a defendant may
remove a civil action filed in state court to federal court if the federal court
5 Id. at ¶¶ 17-20.
6 Id. at ¶¶ 8-16.
7 R. Doc. 26.
8 R. Doc. 27.
9 The Court has learned through its Case Manager that defendants now
believe that complete diversity does not exist. Defendants have put
forth no evidence in support of this assertion and a review of the docket
does not provide any basis for determining that complete diversity
does not exist.
would have had original jurisdiction over the case. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The
removing party “bears the burden of showing that federal jurisdiction exists
and that removal was proper.” Mumfrey v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 719 F.3d
392, 397 (5th Cir. 2013) (citing Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.,
276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir. 2002)). In assessing whether removal was
appropriate, the Court is guided by the principle, grounded in notions of
comity and the recognition that federal courts are courts of limited
jurisdiction, that “removal statute[s] should be strictly construed in favor of
remand.” Manguno, 276 F.3d at 723 (citing Acuna v. Brown & Root, Inc.,
200 F.3d 335, 339 (5th Cir. 2000)).
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). The Fifth Circuit has found that “an
unincorporated association is considered to have the citizenship of its
members.” Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v. Quinn-L Cap. Co., 3 F.3d 877, 882 (5th
Cir.). And courts in the Fifth Circuit have held that insurance exchanges are
unincorporated associations for the purposes of determining diversity
jurisdiction. See Qadeer v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 2010 WL 3743654 at *1
(S.D. Tex. Sep. 22, 2010).
But Farmers Insurance Exchange has stated in its court filings that it
is a California corporation, not that it is an insurance exchange. Thus,
nothing in the record calls into question the complete diversity of the parties.
Further, defendants have put forth no rationale for their motion to remand
aside from the parties’ agreement to remand the case. In Carnegie-Mellon
University v. Cohill, the United States Supreme Court held “a district court
may not remand a case to a state court on a ground not specified in the
removal statute.” 484 U.S. 343, 355 (1988). An agreement between the
parties to remand constitutes a ground not specified in the removal statute.
Absent a recognized ground for remand, the Court must deny the motion.
Til. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to remand is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The parties have until July 9, 2025, to resubmit
this motion stating the grounds for remand.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 25th day of June, 2025.
Lerak Virvee
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE