Evans Law Corporation, APLC et al v. Burgos et al

Filing 14

ORDER and REASON denying 9 Motion to Remand to State Court, as stated within document. Signed by Chief Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 12/29/2016. (cbs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

THE EVANS LAW CORPORATION,
APLC, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 16-13550

VERSUS
SECTION “N” (2)
CESAR R. BURGOS, ET AL.

ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is the motion to remand (Rec. Doc. 9) filed by the plaintiffs, Robert B.
Evans, III and Evans Law Corporation, APLC (collectively “Evans”). The defendants oppose the
motion. (See Rec. Doc. 10 & 11). Now, having reviewed the submissions of the parties, the record,
and the applicable law, the Court rules as stated herein.
This litigation represents the revival of a dispute between two former law partners, Robert
Evans and Cesar Burgos, which has seen the dissolution of the firm Burgos & Evans, LLC. In this
action, Evans asserts against Burgos, and other defendants, a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (“RICO”) claim and various state law claims, including general negligence,
legal malpractice, and a violation of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection
Law (“LUPTA”). Due to the presence of the civil RICO claim, Burgos removed the case from the
24th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson. Evans now moves the court to sever and
remand the state law claims only. As the basis for this request, Evans argues that the Court should
decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims because (1) the LUPTA
claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law and (2) the state law claims substantially
predominate over the civil RICO claim.

The Court disagrees on both counts. First, Evans does not explain how issues of state law
raised by the LUPTA claim are novel or complex; rather, Evans merely argues that LUPTA defines
unfair trade practices broadly. Second, Evans’ state law claims do not substantially predominate,
as Evans has identified these claims as predicate acts to the RICO claim. Finally, because they
relate to the RICO claim, remanding only the state law claims would result in piecemeal litigation
that would unnecessarily consume judicial resources and possibly lead to inconsistent verdicts. For
these reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion to remand (Rec. Doc. 9) is DENIED.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 29th day of December 2016.

________________________________
KURT D. ENGELHARDT
United States District Judge

2