Crane Brothers, LLC v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company of Idaho et al

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 11 Motion to Remand to State Court. The Clerk is directed to remand this case to the Fourth Judicial District for the State of Idaho. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

CRANE BROTHERS, LLC, an Idaho
Limited Liability Company,
Case No. 1:13-CV-00372-BLW
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

v.
FARM BUREAU MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY OF IDAHO,
an Idaho Corporation, SHAWN S.
YOUNG, an individual, LOREN D.
WEST, an individual, JOHN DOE,
individually, DOES I through X, and
BUSINESS ENTITY DOES I through X,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is Plaintiff Crane Brothers, LLC’s Motion to Remand (Dkt. 11).
The Court finds oral argument is unnecessary. For the reasons set forth below, the Court
will remand this case to state court.

MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER - 1

BACKGROUND
Crane Brothers, LLC is an Idaho potato farmer. Crane Brothers insured its crops
under an insurance policy written by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC), a
wholly-owned Government corporation established within the Department of
Agriculture. 7 U.S.C. § 1503 (1988). Crane Brothers obtained its insurance through the
defendant, Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company of Idaho.
In the spring of 2011, Defendants Shawn Young and Loren West, two Farm
Bureau “captive” agents, contacted Adam Crane and Alan Crane regarding Farm
Bureau’s crop insurance. Crane Brothers procured crop insurance from Farm Bureau to
protect Crane Brother’s potatoes from a low-yield loss. Crane Brothers alleges that Farm
Bureau’s agents assured Adam and Alan Crane that the policy was specifically suited to
fit their needs. But when Crane Brothers suffered a loss caused by adverse weather
conditions, Farm Bureau denied coverage without explanation.
Crane Brothers responded by filing suit in Idaho state court alleging claims of
breach of contract, negligence, and estoppel against Farm Bureau, as well as the two
Farm Bureau agents, Young and West. On August 22, 2013, Defendants removed the
case to federal court, asserting: “Plaintiff is making a claim which closely involves and is
controlled by the federal crop insurance program that was created pursuant to 7 U.S.C.
§ 1501-1531 and is governed by the code of federal regulations adopted for this program
along with the handbooks, manuals and bulletins provided by the Risk Management
Agency.” Notice of Removal at 1, Dkt. 1.
MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER - 2

Crane Brothers moved to remand the case to state court. Defendants have failed to
respond.
ANALYSIS
As noted, Defendants have failed to respond to the Crane Brother’s motion to
remand. Failure to file points and authorities in opposition to a motion constitutes consent
that the motion be granted. L.R. 7.1(f)(1). Thus, Defendants are deemed to have
consented to the granting of the motion to remand, and the Court may grant the Crane
Brother’s motion on this basis alone. Regardless, however, the Court grants the motion
based on the merits.
The removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, allows defendants to remove when a case
originally filed in state court presents a federal question or is between citizens of different
states and involves an amount in controversy that exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §§
1441(a), (b); see also 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a). Only state court actions that could
originally have been filed in federal court may be removed. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a);
Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392(1987); Ethridge v. Harbor House Rest.,
861 F.2d 1389, 1393 (9th Cir.1988).
The Ninth Circuit “strictly construe[s] the removal statute against removal
jurisdiction,” and “[f]ederal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the
right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th
Cir.1992) “The ‘strong presumption’ against removal jurisdiction means that the
defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Id.
MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER - 3

There is no question that the complaint contains no federal claims, names no
federal defendants, and lacks diversity. There are, however, a handful of “extraordinary”
situations when “when the preemptive force of federal law is so ‘extraordinary’ that it
converts state common law claims into claims arising under federal law for purposes of
jurisdiction.” Holman v. Laulo-Rowe Agency, 994 F.2d 666, 668 (9th Cir. 1993). This
doctrine is known as complete preemption; it is a “narrow exception” to the “wellpleaded complaint rule,” which makes the plaintiff the master of its complaint and
generally precludes removal when a complaint does not facially present a federal
question. Id.
“The test for complete preemption is whether Congress clearly manifested an
intent to convert state law claims into federal-question claims.” Id. (citing Metropolitan
Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58 (1987)). The United States Supreme Court has
identified only two federal acts whose preemptive force is extraordinary: (1) The Labor
Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. § 185(a); and (2) the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq. Id.
Here, Defendants “Notice of Removal” could be construed as asserting that the
Crane Brothers’ state law claims are completely preempted by the Federal Crop
Insurance Act. The Ninth Circuit, however, has specifically held the Federal Crop
Insurance Act does not completely preempt state law claims. Holman, 994 F.2d at 669.
Thus, removal based on the complete preemption doctrine is not proper in this case, and
the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.
MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER - 4

ORDER
O
T
ERED that Plaintiff Cra Brother LLC’s M
P
ane
rs,
Motion to R
Remand (Dk
kt.
IT IS ORDE
11) is GR
RANTED. The Clerk is directed to remand this case to the Fourth Judicial
o
h
District for the Stat of Idaho.
te

DAT
TED: Dece
ember 12, 2013

__________
__________
_____
___
B. L
Lynn Winm
mill
Chief Judge
ited
District Cou
urt
Uni States D

MEMORA
ANDUM DECISION & ORDER - 5
E