Green v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co

• Court: District Court, W.D. Louisiana
• Decided: March 19, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00696
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

SHEPARD GREEN ET AL CASE NO. 1:24-CV-00696

VERSUS JUDGE EDWARDS

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE MAG. JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES INSURANCE CO ET AL

MEMORANDUM RULING The Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) issued by the Magistrate Judge recommends this suit be remanded to state court.1 The defendants, Casten & Pearce, APLC and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (collectively “Defendants”) object to the R&R.2 Plaintiffs, Crystal Harrison (“Harrison”), Shepherd Green and Latora Green (collectively “Plaintiffs”) responded to the Defendants’ objection.3 The Court has reviewed the record de novo and will note its particular review of Rodriguez v. Casa Chapa S.A. de C.V., 394 F. Supp. 2d 901 (W.D. Tex. 2005) and Barber Bros. Contracting Company, LLC v. Capitol City Produce Company, LLC, 23-788 (La. 12/19/24), 397 So.3d 404. Defendants rely on Rodriguez to support their assertion that the Magistrate Judge failed to conduct a summary inquiry into jurisdictional fraud – that is, whether Harrison is a sham plaintiff added only to defeat federal jurisdiction. The Court notes that unlike the plaintiffs in Rodriguez, Defendants’ assertions of fraud actually relate

1 Doc. 33. 2 Docs. 34 and 35. 3 Doc. 36. to Plaintiffs’ motives to collect money from Defendants through Harrison’s claims, not to defeat jurisdiction.4 The Court is guided by Smallwood v. Illinois Central, 385 F.3d 568, 573-574 (5th Cir. 2004) (“we caution that a summary inquiry is appropriate

only to identify the presence of discrete and undisputed facts that would preclude plaintiff’s recovery against the in-state defendant. In this inquiry the motive or purpose of the joinder of in-state defendants is not relevant.”) The Magistrate Judge found that Harrison, an in-state plaintiff, stated a plausible claim against Casten & Pearce, an in-state defendant.5 A summary inquiry into the motives behind that claim is inappropriate.

Defendants assert that Barber Bros., rendered by the Louisiana Supreme Court after the R&R was issued, “implicitly rejected the notion that prior decisions operate as a damages cap on future decisions.”6 The Court finds that Barber Bros. supports the consideration of prior awards as a factor in determining whether a damage award is excessive. Barber Bros. does not alter the analysis presented in the R&R that the damage awards against Harrison “may have been excessive,”7 particularly given that the damage awards against Harrison exceed the awards in

Barber Bros. The Court finds that the reasoning supporting the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is sound and adopts it as its own. This suit does not satisfy the

4 “It is clear that the only reason Harrison has now been joined as a party plaintiff in this second lawsuit is the attempt by the Greens to side-step the public prohibition against assignment of legal malpractice claims.” (Doc. 35-1 at 13.) 5 (Doc. 33 at 11, fn. 7). 6 (Doc. 35-1 at 9). 7 (Doc. 33 at 15). requirements for diversity jurisdiction. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motions to Remand (Doc. 18 and Doc. 20) are GRANTED, and this matter is hereby remanded to the Tenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Natchitoches, State of Louisiana, whence it was removed. A judgment consistent with this Ruling will be issued forthwith. THUS DONE AND SIGNED at Alexandria, Louisiana, this the 19th day of March, 2025.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE