Petty et al v. Safeco Insurance Co of Illinois

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM RULING. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Hayes on 8/27/13. (crt,Crawford, A)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION
GEORGE PETTY and LOUISE
BARTHOL

*

CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-2207

VERSUS

*

JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES

SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF
*
MAG. JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES
ILLINOIS, ET AL.
MEMORANDUM RULING
On July 3, 2013, Defendant, Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois, removed this matter
to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Notice of Removal).
By separate order entered this date, the undersigned granted remaining Plaintiff Louise Barthol’s
unopposed motion for leave to amend her complaint to join former Plaintiff, George Petty, as a
defendant. (Aug. 27, 2013, Order [doc. # 12]).1 Both George Petty and Louise Barthol are
domiciliaries and citizens of Louisiana. See Petition; Notice of Removal; Suppl. & Amend.
Compl.
The law is clear that when a plaintiff seeks to join an additional defendant whose joinder
would destroy subject matter jurisdiction, the court may: 1) deny joinder, or 2) permit joinder
and remand to state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e). Having permitted joinder herein, remand to
state court is not only proper, it is mandatory. Id.; Hensgens v. Deere & Co., 833 F.2d 1179,
1182 (5th Cir. 1987).2 Accordingly, by separate judgment, the court shall remand the matter to

1

On August 26, 2013, George Petty voluntarily dismissed his claims against the original
defendants. See M/Partial Dismissal and Judgment [doc. #s 9 & 10].
2

In Hensgens, the Fifth Circuit vacated an amendment that allowed the joinder of a
diversity-destroying defendant because the court and the parties did not recognize the effect of

the Fourth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Morehouse, State of Louisiana. 28 U.S.C. §
1447(e).3
THUS DONE AND SIGNED at Monroe, Louisiana, this 27th day of August, 2013.

the amendment. Hengens, supra. Since Hensgens, however, Congress has enacted § 1447(e)
which sets forth the ramifications of a post-removal joinder.
3

Federal courts are obliged to examine the basis for the exercise of federal subject matter
jurisdiction. Smith v. Texas Children’s Hospital, 172 F.3d 923, 925 (5th Cir. 1999). A lack of
subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time. Giles v. Nylcare Health Plans, Inc., 172
F.3d 332, 336 (5th Cir. 1999). Furthermore, a court must raise the issue sua sponte if it discovers
that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Id.
2