Legendre v. Mapfre Insurance Company

Filing 14

ORDER AND REASONS denying 7 Motion to Remand to State Court. Signed by Judge Carl Barbier on 2/1/2019. (cg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JOANN LEGENDRE

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 18-5487

MAPFRE INSURANCE COMPANY,
ET AL.

SECTION: “J”(4)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion to Remand (Rec. Doc. 7) filed by Plaintiff Joann
Legendre. 1 Defendants, Commerce Insurance Company (“Commerce”) 2 and Currin
Wallis, filed an opposition. (Rec. Doc. 12). Considering the motion, the memoranda,
the record, and the law, the Court finds the motion should be DENIED.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This litigation derives from an October 30, 2017 automobile accident involving
Ms. Legendre and Ms. Wallis. Ms. Legendre filed suit against Ms. Wallis (and her
family) for injuries allegedly caused by the accident, in Civil District Court for the
Parish of Orleans. Defendants removed to this Court on the basis of diversity
jurisdiction. 3 Plaintiff now asks for remand—arguing Currin Wallis is in fact a citizen
of Louisiana and diversity is therefore incomplete. 4

The Court uses the spelling of Plaintiff’s name that Plaintiff used in her original state court
pleadings, which is the same way it appears in the caption, not the spelling used in Plaintiff’s motion
to remand, “Joanne.”
2 Commerce was incorrectly named as “MAPFRE Insurance Company d/b/a The Commerce Insurance
Company” in the original pleadings.
3 (Rec. Doc. 1 at 3).
4 (Rec. Doc. 7 at 1).
1

Ms. Wallis was born in Massachusetts, and she lived there for the first 18 years
of her life. 5 She claims Concord, Massachusetts, as her permanent residence although
she now lives in New Orleans, Louisiana, as she did at the time of the accident. 6 Since
before the accident, she has worked as a case manager for Catholic Charities, located
just outside New Orleans in Metairie, Louisiana. 7 She purchased her vehicle in
Louisiana and registered it in Louisiana. 8 She has, however, kept her Massachusetts
driver’s license. 9
When Ms. Wallis first moved to New Orleans in 2012, she began living in a
dorm room at Tulane University as a student. 10 In May of 2014, Ms. Wallis moved
back to Massachusetts for the first half of the summer after her sophomore year. She
then moved to Buenos Aries, Argentina, for a full year. She then spent the next year,
from July 2015 to July 2016, back in New Orleans at Tulane. Ms. Wallis graduated
from Tulane in May of 2016, and from July to October 2016, Ms. Wallis lived in El
Salvador. 11 She then moved to Mexico City, Mexico, for an internship with Amnesty
International for a period of six to seven months. 12
Ms. Wallis moved back to New Orleans in April of 2017. Since moving back to
New Orleans she has moved between apartments or homes several times, but she has
not moved away from the city. In a response to an interrogatory question, she states

(Rec. Doc. 12-3 at 2).
(Rec. Doc. 7-5 at 9).
7 (Rec. Doc. 7-5 at 11).
8 (Rec. Doc. 7-5 at 12).
9 (Rec. Doc. 12-4).
10 (Rec. Docs. 7-5 at 14, 23).
11 (Rec. Doc. 12 at 6).
12 (Rec. Docs. 7-5 at 14; 12-3 at 5).
5
6

2

she “moved to Louisiana to attend school and did not form any intent to stay here
permanently; she currently plans to move back to Mexico City in the near future.” 13
Plaintiff has provided evidence that since moving to New Orleans, Ms. Wallis
has integrated herself with the community. Ms. Wallis works for Catholic Charities,
Archdiocese of New Orleans, an organization dedicated to providing social services to
the poor and vulnerable in the greater New Orleans area. Her social media posts
suggest she has volunteered as a dance instructor for a community cultural
organization, and she has posted on social media regarding local protests of national
events. 14 Finally, she opened checking and savings accounts in Louisiana with JP
Morgan Chase Bank. 15
Nevertheless, Ms. Wallis has maintained significant ties to the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts. In addition to maintaining her Massachusetts driver’s license, she
has kept her same cellphone number, which as a Massachusetts area code. 16 She
registered to vote in Massachusetts and has not registered to vote in Louisiana. 17 In
fact, she voted via absentee ballot in the 2016 presidential election. 18 She has active
accounts with two Massachusetts based banking institutions. 19 She made tax filings
for 2016 and 2017 in Massachusetts, and she uses a public accountant based in
Massachusetts to help her with her filings. 20 Her primary care physician, her

(Rec. doc. 7-5 at 16).
(Rec. Docs. 7-5 at 21, 23).
15 (Rec. Doc. 7-5 at 13).
16 (Rec. Doc. 12-3 at 2).
17 (Rec. Doc. 12-3 at 2).
18 (Rec. Doc. 12-3 at 3).
19 (Rec. Doc. 12-3 at 3).
20 (Rec. Doc. 12-3 at 3).
13
14

3

dermatologist, and her dentist are all based in Concord. 21 Finally, she has averred
that she has returned to Concord for family trips and holidays. 22 Despite her
significant connection to Massachusetts, Ms. Wallis has not suggested she intends to
return there. Her asserted intent is to “return to Mexico and work with Amnesty
International, where [she] previously interned, or another non-governmental or nonprofit organization that works with immigrant and refugee populations, specifically,
women and children.” 23
STANDARD OF LAW
A defendant may remove “any civil action brought in a State court of which the
district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)
(2011). “A federal district court has subject matter jurisdiction over a state claim
when the amount in controversy is met and there is complete diversity of citizenship
between the parties.” Mumfrey v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 719 F.3d 392, 397 (5th Cir.
2013) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)). The amount in controversy required by § 1332(a)
is currently $75,000. Id. The court considers the jurisdictional facts that support
removal as of the time of removal. Gebbia v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 233 F.3d 880, 883
(5th Cir. 2000). Because removal raises significant federalism concerns, any doubt
about the propriety of removal must be resolved in favor of remand. Gasch v. Hartford
Acc. & Indem. Co., 491 F.3d 278, 281-82 (5th Cir. 2007).

(Rec. Doc. 12-3 at 3).
(Rec. Doc. 12-3 at 4).
23 (Rec. Doc. 12-3 at 5).
21
22

4

The only issue before the Court is the citizenship of Currin Wallis. Defendants
argue Ms. Wallis never ceased being a citizen of Massachusetts. 24 Plaintiff argues
that Ms. Wallis has become a citizen of Louisiana, where Ms. Wallis is indisputably
a citizen. 25
The Fifth Circuit opined at length on what makes a person a citizen of a state
in Coury v. Prot, 85 F.3d 244, 248 (5th Cir. 1996). “A United States citizen who is
domiciled in a state is a citizen of that state.” Coury, 85 F.3d at 249. Domicile is
determined by reference to numerous factors, none of them being singularly
dispositive. Id. at 251. “The factors may include the places where the litigant
exercises civil and political rights, pays taxes, owns real and personal property, has
driver's and other licenses, maintains bank accounts, belongs to clubs and churches,
has places of business or employment, and maintains a home for his family.” Id. A
court “may decide the question on the basis of the pleadings, affidavits of the parties
or nonparties, available depositions, and other evidentiary materials.” 13E Charles
Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3612 (3d ed. 1998).
Plaintiff does not dispute that Ms. Wallis has been a citizen of Massachusetts
for most of her life. Because a “person's domicile persists until a new one is acquired
or it is clearly abandoned,” Plaintiff must show there has been a change of domicile.
See id. at 250 (“[T]he party attempting to show a change assumes the burden of going
forward on that issue.”). As the party bringing this matter to federal court, however,
Defendants bear the ultimate burden of proving this Court has jurisdiction. Id.

24
25

(Rec. Doc. 12 at 4).
(Rec. Doc. 7 at 4).

5

Proving “a change in domicile requires only the concurrence of: (1) physical presence
at the new location and (2) an intention to remain there indefinitely.” Id. “A litigant's
statement of intent is relevant to the determination of domicile, but it is entitled to
little weight if it conflicts with the objective facts.” Id. at 251 (citing Freeman v.
Northwest Acceptance Corp., 754 F.2d 553, 556 (5th Cir.1985)).
DISCUSSION
The difficulty with this case is that Ms. Wallis, like many recent college
graduates of her age and generation, cannot be tied to a singular place. She lived with
her family in Massachusetts all her pre-adult life but left her home for a college
education in New Orleans, Louisiana. While still a university student, she began
traveling outside of the United States, and she has now set her sights on living and
working with refugees in Mexico. There’s no claim that Ms. Wallis is domiciled in
Mexico though; at the date of removal, she lived in New Orleans, as she does now.
The question is whether Ms. Wallis is a citizen of Massachusetts, a state she left six
years ago, or Louisiana, a state she has repeatedly returned to for work and education
but has never lived in continuously for more than 18 months. 26
The Court finds that Ms. Wallis never lost her Massachusetts citizenship.
While, Ms. Wallis may no longer think of Massachusetts as “[her] true, fixed, and
permanent home and principal establishment, and to which [she] has the intention
of returning whenever [she] is absent therefrom,” she has never resided in a different
state “with . . . the intention to remain there.” Mas v. Perry, 489 F.2d 1396, 1399 (5th

26

(Rec. Doc. 12-3).

6

Cir. 1974) (quoting Stine v. Moore, 213 F.2d 446, 448 (5th Cir. 1954)). Where a person
has “pulled up stakes with the intention of abandoning his present domicile, but
either has not arrived physically at a new one or has arrived but has not yet
formulated an intention to remain there for the indefinite future” a presumption in
favor of continuation of the established domicile ensures that this person—as a
United States citizen—will still have access to the federal courts. 13E Charles Alan
Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3612 (3d ed. 1998). 27
Thus, until Ms. Wallis simultaneously lives in a place and intends to remain there,
she shall remain a citizen of Massachusetts, even as her bond to Massachusetts
becomes more tenuous. The Court understands Ms. Wallis intends to move—and
perhaps remain—in Mexico, but she still resides in Louisiana. Thus, both prongs have
not been met simultaneously and her citizenship has not changed.
The case most directly on point compels the Court’s decision. In Mas v. Perry,
489 F.2d 1396 (5th Cir. 1974), the plaintiff, Mrs. Mas, was domiciled in Mississippi,
where her parents lived. While there, she married her husband, a Frenchman. Mas,
489 F.2d at 1398. Before marrying, Mr. and Mrs. Mas worked as graduate assistants
at LSU in Baton Rouge for about a year. After they married in Mississippi, the couple
returned to LSU, where they resumed their work as graduate assistants for another
two years. They then moved to Illinois. Mr. and Ms. Mas then filed suit against a
Louisiana citizen, who had been Mr. and Mrs. Mas’s landlord while they worked as

Federal courts have almost universally rejected the argument that an individual could become a
citizen of no state through intransience. But see Pannill v. Roanoke Times Co., 252 F. 910, 911 (W.D.
Va. 1918).
27

7

graduate assistants. Id. At the time of trial, Mr. Mas intended to return to Baton
Rouge to pursue a PhD, but the couple was undecided as to where they would go next.
Even though Mrs. Mas testified she did not intend to return to her parents’
home in Mississippi, the Fifth Circuit found that, “Mrs. Mas did not effect a change
of domicile since she and Mr. Mas were in Louisiana only as students and lacked the
requisite intention to remain there.” Id. at 1400. “Mrs. Mas's Mississippi domicile
was disturbed neither by her year in Louisiana prior to her marriage nor as a result
of the time she and her husband spent at LSU after their marriage, since for both
periods she was a graduate assistant at LSU.” Id. Like Mrs. Mas, Ms. Wallis came to
Louisiana to be a student. Until May of 2016, Ms. Wallis was in New Orleans for her
bachelor’s degree. 28 Unlike Mrs. Mas, Ms. Wallis returned Louisiana to work for a
time and not merely to continue her education, but that does not necessarily
distinguish Mas from this case. Unless there is some evidence that Ms. Wallis
developed the intention to remain in Louisiana, while she was residing here, this
Court has diversity jurisdiction over the case. See Scoggins v. Pollock, 727 F.2d 1025,
1028 (11th Cir. 1984) (finding lack of intent to return did not effect change in domicile
without evidence party intended to remain in state she was residing in).
Plaintiff argues that Ms. Wallis’s assertions that she never intended to remain
in Louisiana are belied by her ties to the New Orleans community. The record does
not support this contention. After graduating, Ms. Wallis immediately traveled to El

Out-of-state students are generally considered as a class to be “temporary residents who are located
in the state where their school is located only for the duration and for the purpose of their studies.”
13E Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3619 (3d ed. 1998).
28

8

Salvador and then to Mexico for an internship. She spent nearly a year outside of the
United States before she returned to New Orleans in April of 2017. 29 She has
continued to live and work in New Orleans since moving back to the U.S., but nothing
in record contradicts her assertion that she has never intended to remain in
Louisiana.
For example, although the record evinces Ms. Wallis has an interest in politics,
she has never changed her voter registration to allow her to vote in Louisiana. When
she last voted in 2016, she chose to vote in Massachusetts via an absentee ballot.
Plaintiff points to a social media post suggesting Ms. Wallis had interest in a local
protest march, but that was a local protest of national immigration policy. This does
not convey a strong interest in remaining in the New Orleans community, only a
concern for immigration policy—which is totally consistent with her desire to return
to Mexico to aid refugee and immigrant populations.
Plaintiff calls attention to the fact that Ms. Wallis has opened a bank account
in Louisiana. Again, this fact taken in the appropriate context does not indicate an
intent to remain in Louisiana. Ms. Wallis opened this account not with a local bank,
but with JP Morgan Chase, a financial behemoth with branches all over the world.
Moreover, Ms. Wallis has maintained her accounts with Cambridge Trust Company,
a bank headquartered in Massachusetts and without a presence in Louisiana—this
relationship with a bank tied to a specific locality speaks much more clearly as to
citizenship.

29

(Rec. Doc. 7-5 at 14).

9

The Court finds Ms. Wallis is a temporary resident of Louisiana, here for the
limited purposes of her education and then her work with Catholic Charities. The
record indicates Ms. Wallis has done what is necessary to be a resident, not a citizen
of Louisiana: she has a job and she’s obtained a residence, a car, and a banking
account. But she has not done more than that. Where possible, she has maintained
her connections to Massachusetts. She has continued to use the services of her doctors
and accountant in her home state, and she has continued to vote absentee. Most
notably, she has kept her phone number with its Massachusetts area code and her
Massachusetts driver’s license, which both serve to project an observable continuing
identity with the state. Thus, Ms. Wallis is a citizen of Massachusetts, and there is
complete diversity. Furthermore, because facts of the case suggest the amount in
controversy to be greater than $75,000, this Court has jurisdiction to hear this case.
28 U.S.C. § 1332.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Remand (Rec. Doc. 7) is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 1st day of February, 2019.

CARL J. BARBIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10