Simpson et al v. Primerica Life Insurance, Co. et al

Filing 21

ADDENDUM TO OPINION AND ORDER. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 7/3/2017. (kh, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
CHARLENE HAYES SIMPSON and )
JOISHA ARTOR SIMPSON,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
PRIMERICA LIFE INSURANCE
)
CO., and ROBERT NELSON,
)
individually and in his
)
official capacity,
)
)
Defendants.
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:16cv701-MHT
(WO)

ADDENDUM TO OPINION AND ORDER
Defendants
court

three

jurisdiction
remand

a

have
times.

to

case,

erroneous.

removed
A

district

reconsider
even

if

this

an

that

lawsuit
court

earlier
earlier

to
is

federal
without

decision
decision

to
was

See In re Loudermilch, 158 F.3d 1143, 1145

(11th Cir. 1998).

“[T]he state court proceedings are

to be interfered with once, at most.”

Harris v. Blue

Cross/Blue Shield of Alabama, Inc., 951 F.2d 325, 330
(11th

Cir.

1992)

(quoting

In

re

La

Providencia

Development Corporation, 406 F.2d 251, 252 (1st Cir.

1969)). As the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has
explained:
“Removal
in
[a]
diversity
case,
to
the
prejudice of state court jurisdiction, is a
privilege to be strictly construed, and the
state court proceedings are to be interfered
with once, at most. This is not only in the
interest of judicial economy, but out of
respect for the state court and in recognition
of principles of comity. The action must not
ricochet back and forth depending upon the most
recent determination of a federal court.
. . .
[T]here is no more reason for a district court
being able to review its own decision, and
revoke the remand, than for an appellate court
requiring it to do so. Both are foreclosed;
nothing can be more inclusive than the phrase
‘on
appeal
or
otherwise’
[in
28
U.S.C.
§ 1447(d)]. The district court has one shot,
right or wrong.”
Harris, 951 F.2d at 330 (quoting In re La Providencia
Development
Here,

Corporation,
defendants

406

F.2d

essentially

at

252-253).

asked

the

court--albeit based on what they framed as additional
evidence--to

reconsider

its

prior

decision

remanding

the case to state court; that is, they improperly asked
the court to take more than “one shot, right or wrong.”
2

Id.

This they cannot do.

It is time to stop this game

of ping pong and to allow this case to proceed in state
court.
DONE, this the 3rd day of July, 2017.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE