Holmes v. Farmers Insurance Company et al

Filing 12

ORDER on 8 MOTION for Leave to Amend Claim filed by John Henry Holmes: Plaintiff shall have 14 days to file a memorandum of law supporting his Motion for Leave to File Second Supplemental and Amending Complaint. Defendants shall then have seven days after the plaintiff files his memorandum to file a response. Failure to timely file a supporting memorandum will result in the denial of the plaintiff's motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 4/30/13. (DCB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

JOHN HENRY HOLMES
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NUMBER 13-39-BAJ-SCR
FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY,
ET AL
ORDER ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND CLAIM
Before the court is the plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File
Second Supplemental and Amending Complaint. Record document number
8.

Although the motion states that the defendants object to the

plaintiff’s proposed amendment, no defendant filed an opposition or
other response to the motion.
Plaintiff seeks to join Safeway Insurance Company of Louisiana
(“Safeway”)

as

a

defendant.

Plaintiff’s

proposed

Second

Supplemental and Amending Complaint alleges that Safeway is a
“domestic company and/or corporation ... with its principal place
of business in the State of Louisiana...” and which provided
uninsured/underinsured

motorist coverage to the plaintiff.1

This court’s subject matter jurisdiction is based on diversity

1

Record document number 8-1, ¶¶ I, VII(a).
However, the
proposed Second Supplemental and Amending Complaint does not allege
that the plaintiff’s damages exceed the liability insurance
coverage provided by the insurance policy issued by defendant
Farmers Insurance Company. It is not clear whether the plaintiff
already has the Farmers’s policy limit information since the
parties waived making initial disclosures. See record document
number 9, Status Report, p. 4, Section G.1.B.

of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Plaintiff is a Louisiana

citizen. Joining Safeway, which is also a Louisiana citizen, would
destroy subject matter jurisdiction and require remanding this case
to the state court. Plaintiff’s motion does not mention, much less
address, 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e), which provides as follows:
If after removal the plaintiff seeks to join additional
defendants whose joinder would destroy subject matter
jurisdiction, the court may deny joinder, or permit
joinder and remand the action to the State court.
Plaintiff did not cite Hensgens v. Deere & Company, 833 F.2d
1179 (5th Cir. 1987), appeal after remand, 869 F.2d 879 (5th Cir.
1989), or a similar case, or address the factors which Hensgens
directs this court to consider in deciding whether to grant a
motion for leave to amend when doing so will require remanding the
case.2

See, Depriest v. BASF Wyandotte Corp., 119 F.R.D. 639

(M.D.La. 1988).
Therefore;

2

In this situation, justice requires that the
district court consider a number of factors to
balance
the
defendant’s
interests
in
maintaining the federal forum with the
competing interests of not having parallel
lawsuits. For example, the court should
consider the extent to which the purpose of
the
amendment
is
to
defeat
federal
jurisdiction, whether plaintiff has been
dilatory in asking for amendment, whether
plaintiff will be significantly injured if
amendment is not allowed, and any other
factors bearing on the equities.

Hensgens, 833 F.2d at 1182.
2

IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff shall have 14 days to file a
memorandum of law supporting his Motion for Leave to File Second
Supplemental and Amending Complaint.

Defendants shall then have

seven days after the plaintiff files his memorandum to file a
response.

Failure to timely file a supporting memorandum will

result in the denial of the plaintiff’s motion.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, April 30, 2013.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3