McCarty et al v. National Union Fire Insurance Company Of Pittsburgh, PA et al
Filing
11
ENTRY AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REALIGN THE PARTIES (DOC. 5 ), DENYING MOTION TO REMAND CASE TO CLARK COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT (DOC. 8 ), AND GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS OF AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC. (DOC. 6 ). Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 11/20/15. (ep)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
DAVID C. MCCARTY, et al.,
)
)
Case No. 3:15-cv-247
Plaintiffs,
)
)
Judge Thomas M. Rose
v.
)
)
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE
)
COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA, et al.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________________________________________________________
ENTRY AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REALIGN THE PARTIES
(DOC. 5), DENYING MOTION TO REMAND CASE TO CLARK COUNTY
COMMON PLEAS COURT (DOC. 8), AND GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
OF AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC. (DOC. 6)
______________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiffs David and Cynthia McCarty brought this action in the Common Pleas Court for
Clark County, Ohio on June 11, 2015. On July 9, 2015, Defendants National Union Fire
Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA (“National Union”) and American International Group, Inc.
(“AIG”) timely removed the action to this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) (Removal Based on
Diversity of Citizenship). The case is now before the Court on the following motions:
Defendant National Union’s Motion to Realign the Parties (Doc. 5),
which requests the realignment of Defendant Miguel A. Pedraza as a
party plaintiff;
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand Case to Clark County Common Pleas Court
(Doc. 8); and
Defendant AIG’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6), which requests dismissal
of AIG as a party.
Of these three motions, only the Motion to Remand (Doc. 8) has been fully briefed. National
Union filed a response (Doc. 9) to that motion on August 19, 2015; and Plaintiffs filed a reply
(Doc. 10) to National Union’s response on August 27, 2015. The Court construes Plaintiffs’
Motion to Remand (Doc. 8) as both a motion and as Plaintiffs’ opposition to National Union’s
Motion to Realign Parties (Doc. 5) because both the Motion to Realign Parties and Motion to
Remand deal with the same issue – whether or not diversity jurisdiction exists in this case.
Plaintiffs have not opposed AIG’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6) and the time for them to do so has
expired.
For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS National Union’s Motion to Realign
Parties (Doc. 5), DENIES the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (Doc. 8), and GRANTS AIG’s
Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6).
I.
NATIONAL UNION’S MOTION TO REALIGN PARTIES (DOC. 5)
National Union moves to realign Defendant Miguel Pedraza as a party plaintiff on the
grounds that no actual and substantial controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Pedraza in this
lawsuit. As a result, argues National Union, Pedraza is a “fraudulently named, sham, nominal
defendant,” i.e., Plaintiffs added Pedraza as a defendant solely for purposes of defeating diversity
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Doc. 1, ¶ 13.)
If Pedraza remains a Defendant, the Court would not have jurisdiction over this action. “It
is axiomatic that there must be complete diversity between the parties of an action to support
diversity jurisdiction.” U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Thomas Solvent Co., 955 F.2d 1085, 1089
(6th Cir. 1992) (citing Smith v. Sperling, 354 U.S. 91, 77 S.Ct. 1112, 1 L.Ed.2d 1205 (1957)). As
both Plaintiffs and Pedraza are Ohio residents, complete diversity currently does not exist in this
case. (Doc. 4, ¶¶ 1, 6.) None of the other Defendants are Ohio citizens. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 6-8.)
Thus, if Pedraza is realigned as a Plaintiff, diversity jurisdiction would exist under 18 U.S.C. §
1332(a), as the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000. (Doc. 4, ¶¶ 29-30.)
2
To be properly aligned, an “actual and substantial” controversy must exist between the
plaintiffs and defendants. U.S. Fidelity, 955 F.2d at 1089 (quoting Indianapolis Gas v. Chase
National Bank, 314 U.S. 63, 69, 62 S.Ct. 15, 17, 86 L.Ed. 47 (1941)). It is well established that:
[t]he courts, not the parties, are responsible for aligning the parties according to
their interests in the litigation. If the interests of a party named as a defendant
coincide with those of the plaintiff in relation to the purpose of the lawsuit, the
named defendant must be realigned as a plaintiff for jurisdictional purposes.
U.S. Fidelity, 955 F.2d at 1089 (quoting Continental Airlines, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.,
819 F.2d 1519, 1523 (9th Cir.1987)). The appropriate alignment of the parties in a case where
jurisdiction is based on diversity “is not to be determined by mechanical rules. It must be
ascertained from the ‘principal purpose of the suit,’ . . . and the ‘primary and controlling matter in
dispute.’” Indianapolis Gas, 314 U.S. at 69, 62 S. Ct. at 17 (citations omitted).
Plaintiffs allege in their Complaint that, on December 11, 2007, Gary R. Gorby &
Associates, LLC (“Gorby”) brought a lawsuit against them in the Common Pleas Court for Clark
County, Ohio. (Doc. 4, ¶ 11.) Plaintiffs subsequently entered into an attorney-client relationship
with Pedraza to represent them in the lawsuit. (Id., ¶ 12.) Pedraza allegedly failed to file an
Answer on their behalf, and, as a result, the court entered a default judgment against Plaintiffs for
an amount totaling over $150,000. (Id., ¶¶ 16-17.)
On January 4, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a legal malpractice action against Pedraza based on his
representation in the Gorby lawsuit. (Id., ¶ 18.) On January 27, 2015, Plaintiffs obtained a final
judgment against Pedraza in that action in the amount of $275,825.29. (Id., ¶ 29.)
In the case before this Court, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants National Union, AIG (as
National Union’s parent company), and Administrators for the Professions of Delaware, Inc.
(“Administrators”) are Pedraza’s legal malpractice insurers and therefore obligated to pay the
3
judgment that Plaintiffs obtained against Pedraza. (Id., ¶ 30.) All of the claims asserted in the
Complaint are against National Union, AIG, and Administrators. (Id., ¶¶ 33-53.) None of the
claims seek any damages or other relief from Pedraza. (Id.)
Plaintiffs have not shown that an actual and substantial controversy currently exists
between them and Pedraza to justify his alignment as a Defendant in this case. No doubt there
was once such a controversy between Plaintiffs and Pedraza, but that controversy was resolved
when Plaintiffs obtained their judgment against him in their legal malpractice action. The
principal purpose of this lawsuit is to recover the amount of that judgment from Pedraza’s legal
malpractice insurers, and the primary and controlling matter in dispute is whether or not the
insurers are obligated to pay that judgment. As a result, Pedraza’s interests are aligned with
Plaintiffs’ interests in this lawsuit. To the extent that Plaintiffs prevail on their claims, then
Pedraza’s personal liability for the judgment against him in the legal malpractice action is reduced.
Plaintiffs argue that Pedraza is an indispensable party under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 and that,
under Ohio Rev. Code § 3929.06(C), Plaintiffs’ action against National Union and Administrators
is subject to the same defenses that they might assert against Pedraza. The first argument, that
Pedraza is an indispensable party, has no impact on the Court’s determination of whether Pedraza
is properly aligned as a Defendant. The second argument, that Plaintiffs’ claims are subject to the
same defenses that the insurers might assert against Pedraza, only underscores that Plaintiffs’
interests are aligned with Pedraza’s interests. Plaintiffs’ arguments against realignment have no
merit.
The Court finds that Pedraza is not properly aligned as a Defendant in this action.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Realign the Parties (Doc. 5) and ORDERS that
4
Pedraza shall be aligned as a Plaintiff in this case.
II.
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO REMAND (DOC. 8)
Plaintiffs’ argument in support of their Motion to Remand is that this Court lacks diversity
jurisdiction because Plaintiffs and Pedraza are Ohio residents. (Doc. 8-1 at 5 (citing 28 U.S.C. §§
1332, 1441).) As the Court has granted the Motion to Realign the Parties (Doc. 5) and ordered
that Pedraza shall be aligned as a Plaintiff in this case, the grounds for Plaintiffs’ Motion to
Remand no longer exist. The Court therefore DENIES the Motion to Remand (Doc. 5).
III.
AIG’S MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. 6)
AIG moves to dismiss itself as a party to this action for failure to state a clam upon which
relief can be granted. (Doc. 6 at 1.) AIG argues that “[a]s Plaintiffs do not, and cannot, allege
that [AIG] issued any insurance policy to Pedraza, it is not a proper party to this action.” (Id. at 3
(citing U-Haul Int’l, Inc. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 2011 WL 9111, *3 (D.
Ariz. Jan. 3, 2011); Ascension Health v. American International Group, Inc., 2009 WL 2195916,
*2 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2009); National Recovery Agency, Inc. v. AIG Technical Services, Inc., 2005
WL 2100702, *16-17 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 26, 2005).) AIG further argues that the Complaint’s
conclusory allegations that AIG is National Union’s corporate parent and “alter ego” are
insufficient to state a claim against AIG. (Id. (citing, among others, Dombroski v. WellPoint, Inc.,
119 Ohio St.3d 506, 510, 895 N.E.2d 538, 545 (2008) (dismissing complaint against parent
company of insurer because plaintiff had failed to allege that the parent “exercised control over the
corporation in such a manner as to commit fraud, an illegal act, or a similarly unlawful act”).
The Court finds that AIG’s arguments have merit. As Plaintiffs did not file any opposition
to the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6), it is GRANTED.
5
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, the Court rules as follows:
Defendant National Union’s Motion to Realign the Parties (Doc. 5) is
GRANTED;
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand Case to Clark County Common Pleas Court
(Doc. 8) is DENIED; and
Defendant AIG’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6) is GRANTED.
DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Friday, November 20, 2015.
s/Thomas M. Rose
________________________________
THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
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?