Joiner et al v. Loutzenhiser et al
NOTICE AND ORDER denying 33 MOTION to Substitute pleading. BITCO General Insurance Company (BITCO) shall file a Motion to Substitute the proposed Amended Complaint of Intervention, within three (3) days of this Notice and Order. No leave of court is necessary. Signed by Magistrate Judge Erin Wilder-Doomes on 8/8/2017. (LLH)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ALVIN JOINER AND
BRYAN LEE LOUTZENHISER,
LL TRANS, INC., AND
UNITED CASUALTY COMPANY
NOTICE AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE PLEADING
Before the court is a third Motion to Substitute Pleading1 (the “Motion to Substitute”) filed
by BITCO General Insurance Company (“BITCO”).
On July 20, 2017, BITCO filed an Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Amended
Complaint of Intervention (the “Motion for Leave”).2 Per its Motion for Leave, BITCO asserted
that its amended Complaint of Intervention would “not destroy subject matter jurisdiction since
the party being named is also diverse to the plaintiffs and the intervenor.”3 However, BITCO did
not adequately alleged its own citizenship. Accordingly, on July 21, 2017, BITCO was ordered to
file a Motion to Substitute the proposed Amended Complaint of Intervention (R. Doc. 26, pp. 46) with a proposed pleading setting forth BITCO’s corporate (or otherwise) status and its
On July 27, 2017, BITCO filed its first Motion to Substitute.5 The proposed Complaint of
Intervention included in the Motion to Substitute was an exact copy of the previously proposed
R. Doc. 33.
R. Doc. 26. BITCO asserts that prior to filing its Motion for Leave, it “obtained consent for the filing and granting
of the motion from all parties having an interest to oppose.” R. Doc. 26, ¶ 8.
R. Doc. 26, ¶ 6.
R. Doc. 28.
R. Doc. 29.
pleading included in the Motion for Leave. As before, BITCO’s only allegation with regard to its
citizenship was that it is “a company authorized to do and doing business in the State of
Louisiana.”6 Because this is an insufficient allegation of BITCO’s citizenship, BITCO’s first
Motion to Substitute was denied.7 On August 1, 2017, BITCO filed its second Motion to Substitute
Pleading.8 Per the proposed Complaint of Intervention, BITCO asserted that it is “a company
authorized to do business in the State of Louisiana and who also has its domicile or citizenship in
the State of Illinois.”9 Despite this court’s previous order requiring BITCO to state: (1) the type
of entity it is (i.e., a corporation or an unincorporated association); and (2) its citizenship based on
the particular rules for that type of entity,10 BITCO failed to allege whether it is a corporation or,
alternatively, an unincorporated association (such as an LLC).
Further, BITCO failed to
adequately allege its citizenship. As set forth in previous orders, if BITCO is a corporation, it must
allege: (1) its state of incorporation; and (2) its principal place of business. If BITCO is an
unincorporated association, it must allege the citizenship of each of its member(s). Accordingly,
BITCO’s second Motion to Substitute Pleading was denied on August 3, 2017, and BITCO was
ordered to file a Motion to Substitute the proposed Amended Complaint of Intervention (R. Doc.
26, pp. 4-6) with a proposed pleading that set forth BITCO’s corporate (or otherwise) status and
its citizenship. If BITCO is a corporation, BITCO was ordered to set forth its state of incorporation
and principal place of business.11
R. Doc. 29.
R. Doc. 30.
R. Doc. 31.
R. Doc. 31, p. 2.
See, R. Docs. 28 & 30.
R. Doc. 32.
On August 7, 2017, BITCO filed the instant Motion to Substitute Pleading. 12 Per its
proposed substitute pleading, BITCO alleges that it is “a corporation of the State of Iowa….”13
While such allegation fulfills the first requirement of this court’s previous orders, and indicates
that BITCO is a corporation, the proposed substitute pleading still does not adequately allege
BITCO’s citizenship. In diversity cases involving corporations, “allegations of citizenship must
set forth the state of incorporation as well as the principal place of business of each corporation.”
Getty Oil, Div. of Texaco v. Ins. Co. of North America, 841 F.2d 1254, 1259 (5th Cir. 1988).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Substitute Pleading14 filed by BITCO
General Insurance Company (“BITCO”) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that BITCO shall file a Motion to Substitute the proposed
Amended Complaint of Intervention (R. Doc. 26, pp. 4-6) with a proposed pleading that explicitly
alleges BITCO’s: (1) state of incorporation; and (2) principal place of business. BITCO shall
have three (3) days from this Notice and Order to file the Motion to Substitute. No leave of court
is necessary to file the Motion to Substitute.
BITCO is HEREBY NOTIFIED that failure to comply with this Notice and Order may
result in denial of the pending Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint of
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on August 8, 2017.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
R. Doc. 33.
R. Doc. 33, p. 2.
R. Doc. 33.
R. Doc. 26.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?