Reynard et al v. Geico Indemnity Company

Filing 5

ORDER granting 2 Motion to Remand to the Circuit Court of Mobile County. Signed by District Judge William H. Steele on 11/27/2018. (tgw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TERRY and CHRISTINE REYNARD,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION 17-0497-WS-N

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand, construed as such
from the filing styled “Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Support of their Motion to Remand” (doc. 2).
On November 8, 2017, defendant, Geico Indemnity Company, filed a Notice of Removal
(doc. 1) removing this action to federal court from the Circuit Court of Mobile County, Alabama.
The Notice of Removal invoked diversity jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and
maintained that complete diversity of citizenship exists because Geico is a Maryland corporation
with its principal place of business in Maryland, whereas plaintiffs, Terry and Christine Reynard,
are Alabama citizens. (See doc. 1, ¶¶ 4-6.) As grounds for their Motion to Remand, however,
the Reynards assert that complete diversity is lacking because plaintiffs’ Second Amended
Complaint (doc. 2, Exh. A) purports to join a second defendant, Malachi Jones, who is an
Alabama citizen, thereby destroying diversity. In a Response, Geico concedes that “diversity has
been defeated and is no longer proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332,” and “consents to the
remand of the above referenced matter.” (Doc. 4, at 1.)
In light of the foregoing, and particularly Geico’s express consent to the remand of this
action following plaintiffs’ joinder of a non-diverse defendant, the Motion to Remand (doc. 2) is
granted. This action is remanded to the Circuit Court of Mobile County, Alabama, for further
proceedings.
DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of November, 2017.
s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE