SYP-EMPIRE L.C. d/b/a GRANDYS v. Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America et al
Filing
7
Memorandum Opinion and Order. The court ORDERS that all claims and causes of action asserted by plaintiff against Rodriguez, Morlen, and Salsbury be, and are hereby, dismissed. (Ordered by Judge John McBryde on 5/12/2015) (ewd)
V.S. fHSHHCT COUU
N'ORTHEI~N iHSrlUCTOfTEXAS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTR CT COURT FlJ f;"O
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TBXAS
~..:._.:;.'-~::_'.::__ _
FORT WORTH DIVISIO
SYP-EMPIRE L.C. D/B/A GRANDY'S,
Plaintiff,
§
§
§
§
vs.
TRAVELERS CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY OF AMERICA, ET AL.,
Defenqants.
§
§
MAY I 2 2015
CLERK, V.S. DISTRICT COURT
.By----;:---,---Deputy
NO. 4:15-CV-213-A
§
§
§
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION
and
ORDER
The above-captioned action was initiated by plaintiff, SYPEmpire L.C. d/b/a Grandy's, by the filing of its petition in the
District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, 153rd Judicial District,
on February 6, 2015.
It named as defendants Travelers Casualty
Insurance Company of America ("Travelers"), Marc Rodriguez
("Rodriguez"), Stefanie Morlen ("Morlen"), and Doug Salsbury
("Salsbury") .
Plaintiff alleged in its petition that Travelers provided
insurance coverage on its properties in Tarrant County, Texas,
when the properties were damaged by a hail and wind storm
occurring in May, 2014, that Travelers has failed to pay
plaintiff the benefits to which plaintiff says it is entitled
under the policy by reason of the damage to its properties, and
that Rodriguez, Morlen, and Salsbury were claims adjusters who
were assigned by Travelers to adjust plaintiff's property damage
claims.
Plaintiff alleged various theories of recovery against
Travelers and the claims adjusters.
On March 19, 2015, Travelers removed the action to this
court based on diversity jurisdiction.
The notice of removal
contained allegations establishing diversity of citizenship and
the requisite amount in controversy as to plaintiff's claims
against Travelers.
In the notice of removal Travelers
acknowledged that plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Texas
and that Rodriguez, Morlen, and Salsbury each likewise is a
citizen of the State of Texas, with the result that complete
diversity of citizenship would not exist if Rodriguez, Morlen, or
Salsbury was properly joined as a defendant.
Travelers pleaded
that the three claims adjusters were improperly and/or
fraudulently joined as defendants, with the consequence that the
citizenship of each of those defendants should be disregarded in
determining whether complete diversity exists.
Plaintiff has not filed a motion to remand to state court,
but that does not relieve this court of the obligation to
determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction.
It does
not have subject matter jurisdiction if any of the claims
adjusters was properly joined, but does have subject matter
jurisdiction if they were improperly or fraudulently joined.
2
The joinder of a local claims adjuster in a state court
action against a non-citizen insurance company in an attempt to
avoid federal court jurisdiction apparently has become a popular
tactic.
See,
~~
Plascencia v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 4:14-CV-
524-A, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135081, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 25,
2014); Davis v. Metropolitan Lloyds Ins. Co. of Tex., No. 4:14CV-957-A, 2015 WL 456726, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 3, 2015).
Earlier in the day on the date of the signing of this memorandum
opinion and order, the court issued similar rulings in another
lawsuit in which such a tactic was employed.
See Memorandum
Opinion and Order and Final Judgment as to Certain Parties issued
in Case No. 4:15-CV-277-A, styled "Elton G. Vann, Jr. v. Allstate
Insurance Company, et al." on May 12, 2015.
After a study of plaintiff's state court pleading, and a
review of the applicable legal authorities, the court has
concluded, for essentially the same reasons given in Plascencia,
Davis, and Vann why the claims adjusters were improperly joined
in those cases, that plaintiff named Rodriguez, Morlen, and
Salsbury as defendants in this action for the purpose of
attempting to defeat federal court jurisdiction.
The court has
concluded that none of the claims asserted against those
individuals would survive a motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, with the
3
consequence that the citizenships of those defendants should be
disregarded in determining whether diversity jurisdiction exists.
And, the court has concluded, for the same reason, that the
claims against those defendants should be dismissed.
Therefore,
The court ORDERS that all claims and causes of action
asserted by plaintiff against Rodriguez, Morlen, and Salsbury be,
and are hereby, dismissed.
The court determines that there is no just reason for delay
in, and hereby directs, entry of final judgment as to such
dismissals.
SIGNED May 12, 2015.
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?