Cousino v. Mass Mutual Life Insurance Company
Filing
20
OPINION AND ORDER by Judge James H Payne ; denying 17 Motion to Remand (pll, Dpty Clk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
DENNIS COUSINA,
Plaintiff,
v.
MASSACUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, a Mutually
Owned Life Insurance Company by
Members and Participating Policy Holders
Home Office Springfield, Massachusetts
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 12-CV-00532-JHP-TLW
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand [Doc. No. 17] and Defendant’s
Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand [Doc. No. 18]. After review of the briefs, and for the
reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
On August 28, 2012, Plaintiff commenced this action in the District Court of Tulsa
County, Oklahoma, alleging breach of contract, failure to pay disability income, and bad faith.
Plaintiff is a resident of the city of Tulsa, Oklahoma. [Doc. No. 3, Ex. 2 at 4, ¶ 2]. Defendant
Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company (“Mass Mutual”) is a Massachusetts mutual
insurance corporation, with its principal place of business in Springfield, Massachusetts. [Doc.
No. 3, Ex. 1 at 1, ¶ 2]. Mass Mutual removed the case to this Court on September 25, 2012
[Doc. No. 3]. On October 12, 2012, Plaintiff filed his Motion to Remand [Doc. No. 17], arguing
that Mass Mutual failed to demonstrate that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the
instant case.
1
DISCUSSION
“Except as otherwise expressly provided...any civil action brought in a State court of
which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the
defendant...to the district court of the United States...embracing the place where such action is
pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Mass Mutual contends that this Court has original jurisdiction
over this action based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which provides that “[t]he district courts shall
have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or
value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens of different states.” 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). There is no dispute that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
However, Plaintiff challenges the existence of complete diversity, contending that both he and
Mass Mutual are citizens of the state of Oklahoma for purposes of § 1332. It is undisputed that
Plaintiff is a citizen of Oklahoma. Further, as explained below, the record in this case establishes
that Mass Mutual is a citizen of Massachusetts.
The law of the state of an organization’s formation controls whether the organization is a
corporation for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331. It is well settled that “[i]f an entity is treated as a
corporation under state law, it matters not for purposes of diversity jurisdiction whether the
corporation is formally shareless or has members rather than shareholders.” Barnett v. Norfolk &
Dedham Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 773 F. Supp. 1529, 1531 (N.D. Ga. 1991); see also National Ass'n
of Realtors v. Nat. Real Estate Ass'n, Inc., 894 F.2d 937, 939 (7th Cir. 1990); Mutual Service
Cas. Ins. Co. v. Country Life Ins., 859 F.2d 548, 551 (7th Cir. 1988); Coté v. Wadel, 796 F.2d
981, 983 (7th Cir. 1986); Saxe, Bacon & Bolan, P.C. v. Martindale–Hubbell, Inc., 710 F.2d 87,
89 (2d Cir. 1983). In addition, “the mere fact that a corporation is doing business or is licensed
to do business in a state does not make it a citizen of that state for purposes of diversity
2
jurisdiction.” Sanders Co. Plumbing and Heating, Inc. v. B.B. Andersen Const. Co., 660 F.Supp.
752, 757 (D. Kan. 1987) (citing Moore's Federal Practice § 0.77[1–3], at 717.10); Jim Walter
Investors v. Empire–Madison, Inc., 401 F.Supp. 425, 426–27 (N.D. Ga. 1975). In accordance
with these well-settled principles, “[w]hen the appropriate regulatory agency has recognized that
an entity has been properly incorporated pursuant to state law, no further inquiry is appropriate in
determining whether that entity is a corporation for diversity purposes; hence, mutual insurance
companies that are incorporated under state law are treated as corporations for diversity
purposes.” 16 Couch on Ins. § 229:22.
As the parties seeking removal, Defendant bears the burden of proving that removal is
proper. Laughlin v. Kmart Corp., 50 F.3d 871, 873 (10th Cir.1995). In ruling on motion to
remand, a court should determine its jurisdiction over case based upon plaintiff's pleadings at
time of removal, supplemented by any affidavits or deposition transcripts filed by parties.
Guillory v. PPG Industries, Inc., 434 F.3d 303 (5th Cir. 2005); Davis ex rel. Estate of Davis v.
General Motors Corp., 353 F. Supp. 2d 1203 (M.D. Ala. 2005). Plaintiff does not dispute any of
the supplemental allegations contained in Mass Mutual’s Notice of Removal; therefore, the
allegations are taken as true. See Kerns v. U.S., 585 F.3d 187, 193 (4th Cir. 2009).
In its Notice of Removal, Mass Mutual asserts that it is a “Massachusetts mutual
insurance corporation, with its principal place of business in Springfield, Massachusetts.” [Doc.
No. 3, Ex. 1 at 1, ¶ 2]. Under Massachusetts law, “the general principles of law relative to the
powers, duties and liabilities of corporations shall apply to all incorporated domestic companies,
including mutual insurance companies having members rather than stockholders.” Barnett, 773
F. Supp. at 1531 (citing Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. Chapter 175 § 30) (emphasis added). Thus, for
purposes of diversity jurisdiction analysis, Mass Mutual should be treated as a corporation.
3
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, “a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of every
State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it
has its principal place of business....” As discussed above, for purposes of diversity jurisdiction,
Mass Mutual is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Massachusetts.
Furthermore, it is undisputed that Mass Mutual’s principal place of business is Springfield,
Massachusetts; therefore, Mass Mutual is deemed a citizen of Massachusetts for purposes of
diversity jurisdiction. As a result, there is complete diversity between Plaintiff and Mass Mutual
and this Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Plaintiff’s Motion to
Remand will be denied.
CONCLUSION
After review of the briefs, and for the reasons detailed above, Plaintiff’s Motion to
Remand [Doc. No. 17] is DENIED.
4
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?