Boutte et al v. CenterPoint Energy Inc et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM RULING re #3 MOTION to Dismiss AEGIS, MOTION to Remand filed by Colleen Boutte, Earl Boutte. Signed by Judge James D Cain, Jr on 3/1/2023. (crt,Benoit, T)

Case 2:23-cv-00261-JDC-KK Document 8 Filed 03/01/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 1283

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAKE CHARLES DIVISION
COLLEEN BOUTTE ET AL

CASE NO. 2:23-CV-00261

VERSUS

JUDGE JAMES D. CAIN, JR.

CENTERPOINT ENERGY INC ET AL

MAGISTRATE JUDGE KAY

MEMORANDUM RULING
Before the court is a Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Immediate Remand [doc. 3]
filed by plaintiffs. Defendant Associated Energy & Gas Insurance Services, Ltd.
(“AEGIS”) opposes the motion. Doc. 7.
I.

BACKGROUND
This suit arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on December 17, 2018,
in Lake Charles Louisiana. Plaintiffs allege that plaintiff Colleen Boutte was traveling
eastbound on Alamo Street when westbound traffic began entering her lane due to a
Centerpoint Energy truck parked in the westbound lane. Doc. 1, att. 1, p. 3 ¶ 5. Mrs. Boutte
slowed her vehicle due to oncoming traffic and was rear-ended by another vehicle,
allegedly resulting in injuries. Id. Mrs. Boutte and her husband filed suit in the Fourteenth
Judicial District Court, Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, on December 9, 2019, asserting that
Centerpoint was liable for her injuries due to its failure to provide a flagman or place any
warning signs or cones to warn of the parked vehicle. Id. at ¶¶ 5–7.

Case 2:23-cv-00261-JDC-KK Document 8 Filed 03/01/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 1284

The suit proceeded in the district court until the plaintiffs named AEGIS, excess
insurer for Centerpoint, as defendant by amending petition filed on December 19, 2022. 1
AEGIS then removed the matter on February 27, 2023, invoking the court’s jurisdiction
under the Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (“the
Convention”) pursuant to an arbitration clause in its policy with Centerpoint. Doc. 1.
Plaintiffs now move to dismiss their claims against AEGIS with prejudice pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), and for immediate remand to the state court.
AEGIS opposes the motion, asserting that the move will prejudice it by depriving it of its
defense of mandatory arbitration. Doc. 7.
II.

LAW & APPLICATION
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing “only that power
authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree.”
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Under 28 U.S.C. §
1441(a), a party may remove an action from state court to federal court if the action is one
over which the federal court possesses subject matter jurisdiction. Federal question
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is properly invoked when the plaintiff pleads a
colorable claim “arising under” the Constitution or laws of the United States. Arbaugh v.
Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513 (2006). Additionally, Section 205 of the Convention
provides “one of the broadest removal provisions . . . in the statute book.” Acosta v. Master

The suit was previously removed to this court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction on January 31, 2020, but remanded
after plaintiffs filed an amending petition naming Louisiana domiciliary Roy Thevenet as defendant. See Boutte v.
Centerpoint Energy, No. 2:20-cv-148 (W.D. La. June 25, 2020).

1

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:23-cv-00261-JDC-KK Document 8 Filed 03/01/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 1285

Maintenance and Constr., Inc., 452 F.3d 373, 377 (5th Cir. 2006). The section provides
that any action whose subject matter “relates to an arbitration agreement or award falling
under the Convention” may be removed “at any time before the trial thereof . . . to the
district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where
the action or proceeding is pending.” 9 U.S.C. § 205.
Plaintiffs do not dispute that their direct action claims against AEGIS invoke
AEGIS’s policy with Centerpoint. They maintain, however, that they are still entitled to
dismiss such claims with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 and that the
court will therefore lose subject matter jurisdiction over the suit. AEGIS opposes this,
asserting that the dismissal will deprive it of its defense of arbitration in this matter and
prejudice it given plaintiffs’ clear intent to seek damages in the amounts covered by the
excess policy.
A plaintiff is master of the complaint. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 346 U.S. 556,
560 (1954). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) allows for voluntary dismissal of
claims at any time on terms that the court considers proper. As a general rule, such a motion
“should be freely granted unless the non-moving party will suffer some plain legal
prejudice other than the mere prospect of a second lawsuit.” Elbaor v. Tripath Imaging,
Inc., 279 F.3d 314, 317 (5th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, when faced with a Rule 41(a)(2)
motion, the district court should grant it absent evidence of abuse by the movant. Id.
Otherwise, the court may either deny the motion or impose additional conditions to cure
the prejudice to the non-moving party.

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:23-cv-00261-JDC-KK Document 8 Filed 03/01/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 1286

AEGIS pleads the loss of its right to compel arbitration as prejudice, even in the
event the claims against it are dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiffs, however, were not
obligated to name AEGIS as a party in the first place. Additionally, they are not parties to
the insurance policy containing the arbitration agreement and had no opportunity to
negotiate it. Accordingly, the court does not view this as sufficient legal prejudice to justify
evading the Fifth Circuit’s preference for freely granting voluntary dismissals. The
dismissal of AEGIS deprives the court of any subject matter jurisdiction over the suit, and
the remaining state law claims will therefore be remanded.
III.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Remand [doc. 3]
will be GRANTED.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Chambers this 1st day of March, 2023.

__________________________________________
JAMES D. CAIN, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 4 of 4