Landry

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LAFAYETTE DIVISION

GREGORY A LANDRY CASE NO. 6:25-CV-00187

VERSUS JUDGE ROBERT R. SUMMERHAYS

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAVID J. AYO

INSURANCE CO

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before this Court is a MOTION TO REMAND filed by plaintiff Gregory Landry. (Rec.

Doc. 7). Defendant State Mutual Automobile Insurance Company opposes the motion. (Rec.

Doc. 13). The undersigned issues the following report and recommendation pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636. Considering the evidence, the law, and the parties’ arguments, and for the

reasons explained below, this Court recommends that Landry’s motion be GRANTED and,

accordingly, this suit be remanded to the 16th Judicial District Court, St. Mary Parish,

Louisiana.

Factual Background

This matter arises from an April 5, 2020 motor vehicle accident involving Landry and

Clifton Rousseau in Morgan City, Louisiana. (Rec. Doc. 1-4 at ¶¶ II-III). Landry settled with

Rousseau and his insurer, Progressive Security Insurance Company. (Id. at ¶ VII). On

March 25, 2022, Landry filed suit against State Farm in state court alleging that State Farm

had issued a policy of uninsured/underinsured motorist insurance coverage and that

Rousseau’s underlying coverage with Progressive was insufficient to cover his damages. (Id.

at ¶¶ IX-X). Notably, Landry’s petition expressly alleged that his damages did not exceed

$75,000. (Id. at ¶ XII). The petition included interrogatories and requests for production.

(Rec. Doc. 1-4 at 7-13). State Farm filed an answer. (Id. at 20-24).

On February 14, 2025, State Farm removed the matter to this Court. (Rec. Doc. 1).

The Notice of Removal states that State Farm had been served on January 20, 2025, with a

Motion and Order for Leave of Court and First Supplemental and Amending Petition. (Id. at

23-29). The proposed amended petition removed the allegation that Landry’s damages did

not exceed $75,000. (Rec. Doc. 1-4 at ¶¶ 27-34).

Landry filed the instant motion seeking remand and contending that State Farm’s

removal was untimely. (Rec. Doc. 7). With respect to the aforementioned state court

amended petition, Landry clarified that this pleading had been sent to State Farm’s counsel

by email and had not been filed in the state court record. As for timeliness, Landry argues

that he had not acted in bad faith as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(1) for removals in excess

of one year from commencement of the action. Here, the case was removed on February 14,

2025, nearly three years after commencement. Landry also argues that complete diversity

is lacking under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1)(A).

In response, State Farm argues that its removal was timely since it removed the suit

within 30 days of service of an amended pleading. (Rec. Doc. 13 at 1). The opposition further

contends that equity dictates that the one-year window be extended since there had been no

activity in the case in state court. (Id. at 1-2). The Court held a hearing on the motion and

took it under advisement. (Minutes, Rec. Doc. 18). The motion is therefore ripe for ruling.

Law and Analysis

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction possessing “only that power

authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree.”

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Howery v. Allstate Ins.

Co., 243 F.3d 912, 916 (5th Cir. 2001). Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction only

over civil actions presenting a federal question and those in which the amount in controversy

exceeds $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs and in which the parties are citizens of

different states. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. A suit is presumed to lie beyond the scope of federal

court jurisdiction until the party invoking the court’s jurisdiction establishes otherwise.

Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377. Similarly, any doubts regarding whether jurisdiction exists must

be resolved against federal jurisdiction. Acuna v. Brown & Root, Inc., 200 F.3d 335, 339 (5th

Cir. 2000). The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing such

jurisdiction exists. St. Paul Reinsurance Co., Ltd. v. Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253 (5th Cir.

1998); Gaitor v. Peninsular & Occidental S.S. Co., 287 F.2d 252, 253 (5th Cir. 1961). Where,

as here, a suit is removed to federal court, the removing party bears the burden of

establishing federal jurisdiction. Shearer v. Southwest Service Life Ins. Co., 516 F.3d 276,

278 (5th Cir. 2008); Boone v. Citigroup, Inc., 416 F.3d 382, 388 (5th Cir. 2005).

Section 1446(c)(1) prohibits removal based solely on diversity jurisdiction more than

a year after the commencement of the action. That same statute provides an exception

permitting a defendant to remove after the expiration of one year when the plaintiff acted in

bad faith to prevent removal. Id. Bad faith arises when the plaintiff attempts to “manipulate

the statutory rules for determining federal removal jurisdiction, thereby preventing [the]

defendant from exercising its rights.” Rants v. Shield Coat, Inc., 2017 WL 3188415, at *5

(E.D. La. July 26, 2017). As such, the court must evaluate whether Landry engaged in

deliberate conduct to prevent State Farm’s removal.

A defendant seeking to escape Section 1446(c)(1)’s general prohibition must satisfy a

high burden of proof to be entitled to application of the bad faith exception. Holman v. Fiesta

Mart, LLC, 2024 WL 2001574, *3 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 17, 2024). Courts have noted that the

defendant’s burden is heavy since courts are “reluctant to find a party acted in bad faith

without ‘clear and convincing proof.’” Manley v. Daimler AG, 2023 WL 4275004, *4 (N.D.

Tex. June 29, 2023). It is clear here that State Farm removed the case well in excess of one

year, so State Farm must show by clear and convincing evidence that Landry acted

intentionally to prevent timely removal.

State Farm contends that equity dictates that the one-year limit be extended to allow

removal where the plaintiff waited before dismissing non-diverse defendants and cites

Dufrene v. Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc., 934 F. Supp. 2d 864 (M.D. La. 2012), and

Ardoin v. Stine Lumber Co., 298 F. Supp. 2d 422 (W.D. La. 2003). (Rec. Doc. 13 at 1-2). The

equitable tolling standard was recognized by the Fifth Circuit in Tedford v. Warner-Lambert

Co., 327 F.3d 423 (5th Cir. 2003). However, the Fifth Circuit in Hoyt v. Lane Constr. Corp.,

927 F.3d 287 (5th Cir. 2019), recognized that the Tedford equitable tolling standard was

superseded by the 2011 amendment to Section 1446 adding the bad faith exception. State

Farm does not cite the correct standard much less satisfy it; therefore, State Farm does not

meet its burden of showing bad faith on Landry’s part.

Given the finding above that State Farm has failed to satisfy its burden of showing

bad faith, the Court need not address the fact that the proposed amended petition had not in

fact been filed in state court. State Farm’s counsel was under the impression that the

amended petition had been filed since the email1 included a signed cover letter addressed to

the Clerk of Court for the 16th Judicial District Court. The briefing does not cite authority

addressing whether an unfiled amended pleading satisfies Section 1446, but the undersigned

notes there is authority suggesting that it does not. See generally Bailey v. S2 Yachts, Inc.,

2008 WL 11338171 at *1 (C.D. Cal. June 16, 2008) (“Where an amended complaint itself

causes an action to be removable, courts have required proper filing and service to start the

removal period.”). This Court further does not agree with Landry’s argument regarding lack

of diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1)(A) since Landry’s suit against State Farm is a first-

1 The parties reference the email to State Farm’s counsel containing the proposed amended petition

but neither party attached it to their filings.

party contract claim against his uninsured/underinsured carrier and not a direct action

against a liability insurer. See Safranek v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 525 F. Supp. 3d 707, 728

(M.D. La. 2021) (holding that an insured’s suit against his own UM carrier is not a direct

action under Section 1332(c)(1)).

Conclusion

For the reasons discussed herein, the Court recommends that Plaintiff Gregory A.

Landry’s MOTION FOR REMAND (Rec. Doc. 7) be GRANTED and, accordingly, this suit be

remanded to the 16th Judicial District Court, St. Mary Parish, Louisiana.

Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), parties

aggrieved by this recommendation have fourteen days from service of this report and

recommendation to file specific, written objections with the Clerk of Court. A party may

respond to another party’s objections within fourteen days after being served with of a copy

of any objections or responses to the district judge at the time of filing.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed factual findings and/or the proposed

legal conclusions reflected in the report and recommendation within fourteen days following

the date of its service, or within the time frame authorized by Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b), shall bar

an aggrieved party from attacking either the factual findings or the legal conclusions

accepted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error.

THUS DONE in Chambers on this 19th day of January, 2026.

hk 6 J. Ayo

United States Magistrate Judge