Bunker v. Midstate Mutual Insurance Company et al

Filing 22

ORDER denying 9 Motion to Remand. So Ordered by Judge Paul J. Barbadoro.(jna)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Cindy Bunker
v.

Civil No. 14-cv-274-PB
Opinion No. 2014 DNH 161

Midstate Mutual Insurance
Company, et al.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Cindy Bunker was injured at a Nashua, New Hampshire rental
property owned by Brian Nadeau.

She sued Nadeau for negligence

and later brought a separate insurance coverage action in state
court against Nadeau, a New Hampshire resident, and his insurer,
Midstate Insurance Company, a New York corporation.

Midstate

removed the insurance coverage action to this court.
Bunker has filed a motion to remand, arguing that the court
lacks diversity of citizenship jurisdiction over the insurance
coverage action because she and Nadeau are both residents of New
Hampshire.

Midstate has responded by claiming that the parties

should be realigned for jurisdictional purposes because she and
Nadeau share a common interest in obtaining coverage for Bunker
under the Midstate policy.

For jurisdictional purposes, I must look beyond the
pleadings and arrange the parties according to their actual
interests in the dispute.

See City of Indianapolis v. Chase

Nat’l Bank, 314 U.S. 63, 75 n.4 (1941) (in determining diversity
of citizenship, “the parties must be aligned according to their
‘attitude towards the actual and substantial controversy’”
(quoting Sutton v. English, 246 U.S. 199, 204 (1918))).

As

Midstate contends, Bunker and Nadeau have the same interests
here.

That they are adverse parties in a separate state court

negligence action is of no matter.

See Scotts Co. LLC v. Seeds,

Inc., 688 F.3d 1154, 1157 (9th Cir. 2012) (“When considering the
primary purpose of a federal case in a realignment inquiry, a
court may not consider claims made in a different case.”).
I am guided by Littlefield v. Acadia Ins. Co., 392 F.3d 1,
4 n.2 (1st Cir. 2004), in which the plaintiff named an insurance
policy holder as a defendant in his declaratory judgment action
seeking coverage for his injuries.

Since both the plaintiff and

the policy holder were residents of New Hampshire, the inclusion
of the policy holder would normally have defeated diversity
jurisdiction.

Nevertheless, the First Circuit, noting the

identical interests and relief sought by the plaintiff and
policy holder, realigned these parties and permitted the
district court to assert jurisdiction over the matter.
2

Id.

(citing Indianapolis, 314 U.S. at 75 n.4).
The same logic applies here.

Both Bunker and Nadeau seek a

declaration that Midstate is obligated to provide coverage Bunker in the initial claim, and Nadeau in a crossclaim against
Midstate.1

As in Littlefield, Bunker and Nadeau have the same

interests in this dispute.

Because diversity of citizenship

exists after the parties are realigned according to their
interests, I deny Bunker’s motion to remand.

Doc. No. 9.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro
Paul Barbadoro
United States District Judge
July 28, 2014
cc:

1

Thomas E. Craig, Esq.
James E. Fiest, Esq.
Adam R. Mordecai, Esq.
Doreen F. Connor, Esq.
Kevin G. Collimore, Esq.

Nadeau’s crossclaim requests a declaration “that the Midstate
policy applies to the Plaintiff’s claim and provides coverage
for [Bunker’s] claims against Brian Nadeau.” Doc. No. 8.
3