Moore v. State Farm Lloyds et al

Filing 8

Memorandum Opinion and Order denying 4 Motion to Remand filed by James Moore. The court ORDERS that the motion to remand in each of the captioned actions be, and is hereby, denied. The court further ORDERS that all claims and causes of action asserted by Moore against Dicesare in Case No. 4:15-CV- 239-A be, and are hereby, dismissed. (Ordered by Judge John McBryde on 5/28/2015) (mem) (Main Document 8 replaced on 5/28/2015) (mem).

U.S. DISTRICT CQI;RT
NORTHERN DISTll!CTOFTEXAS

FJLEQ__
.·

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXA~ •.
FORT WORTH DIVISION

MAY 28 2015

CLERK, U.S. DlSTRlCT COURT

ANTHONY OGDEN,
Plaintiff,

vs.
STATE FARM LLOYDS, ET AL.,
Defendants.

COTY MITCHELL, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,

vs.
STATE FARM LLOYDS, ET AL.,
Defendants.

JAMES MOORE,
Plaintiff,

vs.
STATE FARM LLOYDS, ET AL.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

NO. 4:15-CV-139-A

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

NO. 4:15-CV-181-A

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

NO. 4:15-CV-239-A

MEMORANDUM OPINION
and
ORDER
This is a combined memorandum opinion and order that
resolves issues that are common to the above-captioned actions.

A.

The Backgrounds of the Three Actions
1.

The 4:15-CV-139-A Action

Case No. 4:15-CV-139-A was initiated by plaintiff, Anthony
Ogden ("Ogden"), by the filing of his petition in the District
Court of Tarrant County, Texas, 141st Judicial District, on
January 26, 2015, naming as defendants State Farm Lloyds ("State
Farm") and Dalena Anderson ("Anderson").

Ogden alleged in his

petition that State Farm provided insurance coverage on his
property in Tarrant County, Texas, when the property was damaged
by a hail and wind storm occurring on October 2, 2014; that State
Farm failed to pay Ogden the benefits to which he said he was
entitled under the policy by reason of the damage to his
property; and, that Anderson was a claims adjuster who was
assigned by State Farm to adjust Ogden's property damage claim.
Ogden alleged various theories of recovery against State Farm and
Anderson.
On February 24, 2015, State Farm and Anderson removed the
action to this court based on diversity of citizenship.

The

notice of removal contained allegations establishing complete
diversity of citizenship and the requisite amount in controversy
as to Ogden's claims against State Farm.

State Farm acknowledged

in the notice of removal that Ogden and Anderson are citizens of
the State of Texas, with the result that complete diversity of

2

citizenship would not exist if Anderson was properly joined as a
defendant.

State Farm pleaded that Anderson was improperly

joined and/or fraudulently joined as a defendant, with the
consequence that her state of citizenship should be disregarded
in determining whether complete diversity exists.
On March 10, 2015, Ogden filed a motion to remand, alleging
that complete diversity does not exist because of the claims
asserted by Ogden against Anderson, a citizen of the State of
Texas who was not improperly joined.

On March 26, 2015, State

Farm and Anderson filed a response to the motion to remand,
persisting in their contention that Anderson was improperly
joined as a defendant, with the consequence that her citizenship
should be disregarded for the purpose of determining whether
complete diversity exists.
2.

The 4:15-CV-181-A Action

Case No. 4:15-CV-181-A was initiated by plaintiffs, Coty
Mitchell and Clydelynn Mitchell (the "Mitchells") , by the filing
of their petition in the District Court of Tarrant County, Texas,
96th Judicial District, on February 9, 2015, naming as defendants
State Farm Lloyds ("State Farm") and Laurin Linson ("Linson").
The Mitchells alleged in their petition that State Farm provided
insurance coverage on their property in the Grand Prairie, Texas,
area when the property was damaged by a hail and wind storm

3

occurring on October 2, 2014; that State Farm failed to pay the
Mitchells the benefits to which they said they were entitled
under the policy by reason of the damage to their property; and,
that Linson was a claims adjuster who was assigned by State Farm
to adjust the Mitchells's property damage claim.

The Mitchells

alleged various theories of recovery against State Farm and
Linson.
On March 11, 2015, State Farm removed the action to this
court based on diversity of citizenship.

The notice of removal

contained allegations establishing complete diversity of
citizenship and the requisite amount in controversy as to the
Mitchells's claims against State Farm.

State Farm acknowledged

in the notice of removal that the Mitchells and Linson are
citizens of the State of Texas, with the result that complete
diversity of citizenship would not exist if Linson was properly
joined as a defendant.

State Farm pleaded that Linson was

improperly joined and/or fraudulently joined as a defendant, with
the consequence that her state of citizenship should be
disregarded in determining whether complete diversity exists.
On March 25, 2015, the Mitchells filed a motion to remand,
alleging that complete diversity does not exist because of the
claims asserted by the Mitchells against Linson, a citizen of the
State of Texas who was not improperly joined.

4

On April 15, 2015,

State Farm filed a response to the motion to remand, persisting
in its contention that Linson was improperly joined as a
defendant, with the consequence that her citizenship should be
disregarded for the purpose of determining whether complete
diversity exists.
3.

The 4:15-CV-239-A Action

Case No. 4:15-CV-239-A was initiated by plaintiff, James
Moore ("Moore"), by the filing of his petition in the District
Court of Tarrant County, Texas, 67th Judicial District, on
February 24, 2015, naming as defendants State Farm Lloyds ("State
Farm") and Jon Dicesare ("Dicesare").

Moore alleged in his

petition that State Farm provided insurance coverage on his
property in Tarrant County, Texas, when the property was damaged
by a hail and wind storm occurring on October 14, 2014; that
State Farm failed to pay Moore the benefits to which he said he
was entitled under the policy by reason of the damage to his
property; and, that Dicesare was a claims adjuster who was
assigned by State Farm to adjust Moore's property damage claim.
Moore alleged various theories of recovery against State Farm and
Dicesare.
On March 30, 2015, State Farm removed the action to this
court based on diversity of citizenship.

The notice of removal

contained allegations establishing complete diversity of

5

citizenship and the requisite amount in controversy as to Moore's
claims against State Farm.

State Farm acknowledged in the notice

of removal that Moore and Dicesare are citizens of the State of
Texas, with the result that complete diversity of citizenship
would not exist if Dicesare was properly joined as a defendant.
State Farm pleaded that Dicesare was improperly joined and/or
fraudulently joined as a defendant, with the consequence that his
state of citizenship should be disregarded in determining whether
complete diversity exists.
On April 20, 2015, Moore filed a motion to remand, alleging
that complete diversity does not exist because of the claims
asserted by Moore against Dicesare, a citizen of the State of
Texas who was not improperly joined.

On May 11, 2015, State Farm

filed a response to the motion to remand, persisting in its
contention that Dicesare was improperly joined as a defendant,
with the consequence that his citizenship should be disregarded
for the purpose of determining whether complete diversity exists.
B.

Analysis
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.

After a study of state court pleadings of the

plaintiff(s) in each of the captioned actions, and a review of

6

the applicable legal authorities, the court has concluded, for
essentially the same reasons given by the court in the similar
actions in which the court recently has found improper joinder
of an adjuster,

1

that the claims adjuster was named as a

defendant in each of the captioned actions for the purpose of
attempting to defeat federal court jurisdiction.
The court has concluded that none of the claims asserted
against the adjuster in any of the captioned actions would
survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, with the consequence that his/her
citizenship should be disregarded in determining whether
diversity jurisdiction exists.

And, the court has concluded, for

the same reason, that the claims against each of the claims
adjusters should be dismissed, and that the motion to remand in
each of the captioned actions should be denied.

'Within the last few months the court has been required to make rulings in eight other cases in
which this tactic was employed, more often than not by the same law firm (which is the same firm
involved in the three captioned cases). 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.
ofTex., No. 4:14-CV-957-A, 2015 WL 456726, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 3, 2015); SYP-Empire L.C. v.
Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. of Am., No. 4:15-CV-213-A, 2015 WL 2234912, at *1 (N.D. Tex. May 12, 2015);
Vann v. Allstate Texas Lloyds, No. 4:15-CV-277-A, 2015 WL 2250243 at *1 (N.D. Tex. May 12, 2015);
Cano v. Allstate Texas Lloyds, No. 4:15-CV-096-A, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63477, at *1 (N.D. Tex. May
14, 2015); Gonzalez v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 4:15-CV-305-A (N.D. Tex. May 27, 2015); Arriaga v.
State Farm Lloyds, No. 4:15-CV-308-A (N.D. Tex. May 27, 2015); Hershon v. State Farm Lloyds, No.
4:15-CV-312-A (N.D. Tex. May 27, 2015).
7

C.

Orders
Therefore,
The court ORDERS that the motion to remand in each of the

captioned actions be, and is hereby, denied.
The court further ORDERS that all claims and causes of
action asserted by Ogden against Anderson in Case No. 4:15-CV139-A be, and are hereby, dismissed.
The court further ORDERS that all claims and causes of
action asserted by the Mitchells against Linson in Case No. 4:15CV-181-A be, and are hereby, dismissed.
The court further ORDERS that all claims and causes of
action asserted by Moore against Dicesare in Case No. 4:15-CV239-A 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 each of
such dismissals.
This memorandum opinion and order is to be docketed by the
clerk in each of the captioned actions.
SIGNED May 28, 2015.

8