Nathan Barlow v. United Property & Casualty Insurance Company

• Court: District Court, E.D. Louisiana
• Decided: December 29, 2025
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00016
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

NATHAN BARLOW CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 23-16

UNITED PROPERTY & CASUALTY SECTION: “H” INSURANCE COMPANY

ORDER Before the Court is Defendant Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association’s (“LIGA”) Petition for Intervention (Doc. 12). The Court now reviews subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte. Plaintiff Nathan Barlow filed this federal action against his insurer, Defendant United Property & Casualty Insurance Company (“UPC”) in January 2023. UPC became insolvent, and the Court permanently stayed all claims against UPC in March 2023.1 Upon LIGA’s motion, the Court granted LIGA leave to intervene and join this action. The Court’s subject matter jurisdiction is premised on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. However, both Plaintiff Nathan Barlow and LIGA are Louisiana citizens. Thus, LIGA’s intervention destroys complete diversity and the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.2

1 The Court also stayed the entire action for six months, pursuant to Louisiana Revised Statutes § 22:2068(A). The six-month period elapsed in September 2023. However, as all claims against the lone Defendant, UPC, were stayed indefinitely, this action remained effectively and administratively stayed until LIGA was joined as a defendant through its Petition for Intervention. Accordingly, the Court clarifies that, in effect, this action was reopened and no longer stayed on July 28, 2025, once LIGA was joined. 2 See e.g. Bergeron v. United Prop. and Cas. Ins. Co., No. 22-808, 2024 WL 3175940 (E.D. La. June 26, 2024). A court must dismiss claims “for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when the court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case.”? However, 28 U.S.C. § 16538 provides that “[d]efective allegations of jurisdiction may be amended, upon terms, in the trial or appellate courts.” A district court’s decision to permit amendment under § 1658 turns on the nature of the jurisdictional defect.4 Where “jurisdictional problems are of the ‘technical’ or ‘formal’ variety, they fall squarely within the ambit of § 1653.”5 Thus, amendment should be allowed where “diversity jurisdiction was not questioned by the parties and there is no suggestion in the record that it does not in fact exist.” Here, the record demonstrates the absence of subject matter jurisdiction, and amendment would be futile. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that LIGA’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 15) is DENIED AS MOOT.

New Orleans, Louisiana this 29th day of December, 2025. g TRICHE Lh 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3 Home Builders Ass’n of Miss., Inc. v. City of Madison, 143 F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir. 1998). 4 Id. at 888. 5 Id. 6 Stafford v. Mobil Oil Corp., 945 F.2d 803, 806 (Sth Cir. 1991) (quoting Leigh v. Nat’l Aeronautics & Space Admin., 860 F.2d 652, 653 (5th Cir. 1988)).