Trahan v. Deutsche Investment Management Americas, Inc. et al

Filing 109

ORDER AND REASONS: IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff's 101 Motion to Remand is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the 106 motion to dismiss is GRANTED and Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Accent Title, LLC, are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 6/5/2017. (mmv)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
NORMAN PAUL TRAHAN

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 15-3039

DEUTSCHE INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT
AMERICAS, INC., ET AL.

SECTION “B”(2)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court are Plaintiff’s “Motion to Remand” (Rec.
Doc. 101) and Defendant Accent Title, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss (Rec.
Doc. 106),
IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is DENIED.
A district court must remand a case to state court if “at any time
before final judgement it appears that the district court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. 1447(c); Preston v. Tenet
Healthsys. Mem’l Med. Ctr., Inc., 485 F.3d 804, 813 n.3 (5th Cir.
2007). The burden of establishing that federal jurisdiction exists
in a case “rests on the party seeking the federal forum.” Howery
v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912, 916 (5th Cir. 2001). The
removal statute is to be strictly construed. Gasch v. Hartford
Accident & Indem. Co., 491 F.3d 278, 281 (5th Cir. 2007). Any
“doubts regarding whether removal jurisdiction is proper should be
resolved against federal jurisdiction.” Acuna v. Brown & Root Inc.,
200 F.3d 335, 339 (5th Cir. 2000). In order to determine whether
jurisdiction is present, a court must “consider the claims in the

state court petition as they existed at the time of removal.”
Maguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th
Cir. 2002).
At the time of removal complete diversity existed between the
parties and the petition had federal jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1332

(Rec.

Doc.

1).

Furthermore,

there

was

federal

question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 at the time of removal
as the Plaintiff asserted a Truth in Lending Act claim (Rec. Doc.
1). Even though most Defendants and claims have been dismissed,
the motion to remand is inappropriate given that jurisdiction is
assessed at the time of removal and not at future dates in the
course of ongoing litigation. As the Fifth Circuit has explained,
“the rationale for determining removal jurisdiction on the basis
of claims in the state court complaint as it exists at the time of
removal is obvious. Without such a rule, disposition of the issue
would never be final, but would instead have to be revisited every
time the plaintiff sought to amend the complaint to assert a new
cause

of

action

against

the

nondiverse

defendant,

all

at

considerable expense and delay to the parties and the state and
federal

courts

involved.

Limiting

the

removal

jurisdiction

question to the claims in the state court complaint avoids that
unacceptable result, and permits early resolution of which court
has jurisdiction, so that the parties and the court can proceed

2

with, and expeditiously conclude, the litigation.” Cavallini v.
State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 44 F.3d 256, 264 (5th Cir. 1995).
It appearing to this Court that the Motion to Dismiss having
merit,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to dismiss is GRANTED
and Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Accent Title, LLC, are
hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Local Rule 7.5 of the Eastern
District of Louisiana requires that memoranda in opposition with
citations of authorities be filed and served no later than eight
(8) days before the noticed submission date. No memoranda in
opposition to the instant motion, set for submission on April 12,
2017 have been submitted. No party has filed a motion to continue
the noticed submission date or filed a motion for extension of
time within which to oppose the motion. Accordingly, the motion is
deemed to be unopposed.
A motion for reconsideration of this Order based on the
appropriate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, if any, must be filed
within

thirty

accompanied

by

(30)

days

opposition

of

this

Order.

memoranda

to

The
the

motion
original

must

be

motion.

Because such a motion would not have been necessary had timely
opposition memoranda been filed, the costs incurred in connection
with the motion, including attorney's fees, will be assessed
against the party moving for reconsideration. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
16, 83.

A statement of costs conforming to Local Rule 54.3 shall
3

be submitted by all parties desiring to be awarded costs and
attorney's fees no later than eight (8) days prior to the noticed
submission date of the motion for reconsideration.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 5th day of June, 2017.

___________________________________
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4