Phillips et al v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.

Filing 14

RULING and ORDER Adopting 8 Report and Recommendation of the U.S. Magistrate Judge. Plaintiffs' 3 Motion to Remand is DENIED. Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant Elizabeth M. Ary are hereby DISMISSED. The Court refers this matter to the Magistrate Judge for a scheduling conference. Signed by Judge James J. Brady on 7/18/2017. (EDC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ROGER S. PHILLIPS, III, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK N.A., ET AL.

NO. 16-00564-JJB-EWD

RULING AND ORDER
Before the Court is a Motion to Remand filed by Plaintiffs, Roger S. Phillips, III and
Sharon Burge Phillips, individually and as beneficiaries of, and as individual co-trustees
on behalf of, The Roger S. Phillips, Jr. Exemption Testamentary Trust, The Roger S.
Phillips, Jr. Marital Testamentary Trust, and The Roger S. Phillips, Jr. Testamentary Trust
Part A/Trust Part B.1 Defendant, JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., has filed an Opposition
to the Motion.2
United States Magistrate Judge Erin Wilder-Doomes issued a Report and
Recommendation dated May 8, 2017 recommending that the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand
be denied because JPMorgan Chase had met its heavy burden of proving Defendant
Elizabeth M. Ary had been improperly joined to destroy diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. §

1
2

Doc. 3.
Doc. 4.

1 

1332.3 Plaintiffs timely filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation.4 JPMorgan
Chase Bank N.A. subsequently filed a Response to Plaintiffs’ Objections.5
Having carefully considered the Motion, the record, the applicable law, the Report
and Recommendation, and the Plaintiffs’ Objections, the Court hereby approves the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and adopts it
as the Court’s opinion herein.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand6 is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant Elizabeth M.
Ary are hereby DISMISSED.
The Court refers this matter to the Magistrate Judge for a scheduling conference.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on July 18, 2017.

S

JUDGE JAMES J. BRADY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

3
Doc. 8. The Magistrate Judge specifically found that (1) Plaintiffs failed to establish a claim against Ary
based on Louisiana law of mandate; (2) Plaintiffs could not state a claim for relief against Ary for negligence
under Canter v. Koehring because this case does not involve a claim for bodily injuries; (3) the allegations
against Ary relate to those actions she took within the scope of her employment at JPMorgan as part of her
official duties on behalf of JPMorgan, therefore, pursuant to Louisiana law “there is no reasonable basis for
the Court to predict that Plaintiffs might be able to recover from Ary personally for her negligent actions
taken as the Managing JPMorgan Trust Officer for the Testamentary Trusts;” (4) considering the allegations
set forth in Plaintiffs’ Petition, in conjunction with the applicable law, there was no reasonable basis for the
Court to predict that the Plaintiffs would be able to recover against Ary for alleged fraud; and (5) the Plaintiffs
failed to sufficiently allege that Ary exceeded the scope of her authority as the Managing JPMorgan Trust
Officer of the Testamentary Trusts.
4
Doc. 9.
5
Doc. 13.
6
Doc. 3. 

2