Tari v. Progressive Corporation

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: November 19, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-03021
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Khalid Hassan Tari, et al., No. CV-24-03021-PHX-DWL

10 Plaintiffs, ORDER

11 v.

12 Progressive Corporation, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 The parties have filed a stipulation to amend the case caption, in which the parties 16 state that “Progressive Corporation and Progressive Casualty Company were incorrectly 17 named as defendants in this lawsuit, and that the proper defendant to this action is 18 Progressive Direct Insurance Company.” (Doc. 10.) 19 This request will be denied without prejudice. Had Plaintiffs named a single 20 nonexistent “Progressive” defendant in the complaint and merely used the wrong 21 verbiage to name that defendant, it might be possible to correct the error in the manner 22 proposed in the stipulation. 5A Charles Alan Wright and Arthur R. Miller, Federal 23 Practice and Procedure § 1321 (4th ed. 2020) (reasons that might justify amending a case 24 caption include “an erroneous designation of the capacity in which a party is suing or 25 being sued, or the identification of something that is not a legal entity”). But here, 26 Plaintiffs named two different “Progressive” entities and the parties’ stipulation doesn’t 27 specify whether one or both is a real entity (as opposed to a misnomer for the entity that 28 everybody now agrees should be the correct defendant, “Progressive Direct Insurance 1 Company”). On this record, the Court will not amend the caption. Paatalo v. First Am. 2 Title Co. of Montana, 2014 WL 858999, *2 (D. Mont. 2014) (“there is a difference 3 between correcting a misnomer and changing a party”) (internal quotation marks and 4 citation omitted). At any rate, a caption change is generally unnecessary. See, e.g., 5 Hoffman v. Halden, 268 F.2d 280, 303 (9th Cir. 1959), overruled on other grounds 6 by Cohen v. Norris, 300 F.2d 24 (9th Cir. 1962) (“[T]he caption of an action is only the 7 handle to identify it.”); Hoemke v. Macy’s W. Stores LLC, 2020 WL 5229194, *1 (D. 8 Ariz. 2020) (“There is very little case law regarding the legal standard for amending a 9 caption, and no federal or local rule governs caption amendments. In the absence of 10 authority to the contrary, it appears that whether to amend a case caption is within the 11 Court’s discretion and should be based on factors such as promoting clarity and avoiding 12 confusion. Obvious reasons for requiring that a caption be maintained consistently 13 throughout the entirety of an action include organizational matters, ease of reference, and 14 case cohesion for posterity. . . . For this reason, the Court does not generally grant 15 motions to amend the caption of a case each time a defendant is dismissed (e.g., after a 16 defendant succeeds on a Rule 12(b) motion) during the course of litigation, as it would be 17 confusing for the case name to continually change as the litigation unfolds.”) (citations 18 omitted); Wright & Miller § 1321 (“The caption is not determinative as to the identity of 19 the parties to the action, the district court’s personal jurisdiction over the defendant, or its 20 subject matter jurisdiction over the claims.”). 21 Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the Court to “add or drop a 22 party” “at any time, on just terms,” in response to a motion or stipulation or sua sponte. 23 Because the parties agree that Progressive Direct Insurance Company is the only “proper 24 defendant to this action,” (Doc. 10), the Court will drop Progressive Corporation and 25 Progressive Casualty Company and add Progressive Direct Insurance Company. 26 If Progressive Corporation and Progressive Casualty Company do not exist and 27 never have existed, the parties may choose to renew their request for a caption change, if 28 they so desire. Although the Court reiterates that such a change would have no legal 1 significance, the Court also recognizes that having the proper party named in the caption 2 is viscerally satisfying, though legally inconsequential. At this early stage of the 3 litigation, the interest in case cohesion is diminished and the change would not cause 4 confusion. Cf. Cirba Inc. v. VMware, Inc., 2022 WL 16527230, *3 (D. Del. 2022) 5 (updating the caption at a “late juncture” in the case would not “promote clarity or 6 efficiency”). However, if either Progressive Corporation or Progressive Casualty 7 Company exists or existed at one time, the Court will not entertain a renewed request to 8 amend the caption. 9 As a separate matter, the Notice of Removal fails to adequately establish that the 10 Court has subject-matter jurisdiction. The Court has an independent obligation to ensure 11 that it does. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999). Pursuant to 12 Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[i]f the court determines at any 13 time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” 14 Diversity jurisdiction exists when there is complete diversity of citizenship 15 between the plaintiff and the defendants and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, 16 exclusive of interests and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. A controversy meets this requirement 17 when “all the persons on one side of it are citizens of different states from all the persons 18 on the other side.” Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. 267 (1806). 19 The Notice of Removal adequately alleges that Plaintiffs are citizens of Arizona 20 and New Mexico. (Doc. 1 ¶ 2.) As to its own citizenship, Defendant alleges that it is “a 21 foreign corporation with it principal place of business in . . . Ohio.” (Id.) This is 22 inadequate. A corporation, whether incorporated in a state of the United States or in a 23 foreign country, is “deemed a citizen of its place of incorporation and the location of its 24 principal place of business.” Nike, Inc. v. Comercial Iberica de Exclusivas Deportivas, 25 S.A., 20 F.3d 987, 990 (9th Cir. 1994). Defendant must affirmatively allege its place of 26 incorporation. Star Ins. Co. v. West, 2010 WL 3715155, *1 (D. Ariz. 2010) (“[T]he 27 Notice of Removal fails to properly allege the citizenship of the plaintiffs in that it merely 28 states that they ‘are foreign corporations, with its/their principal place of business in 1 || Michigan and Minnesota.’ Such a jurisdictional allegation is insufficient as a matter of 2|| law since a corporation is a citizen both of the state by which it is incorporated and the || state where it has its principal place of business, and a notice of removal must 4|| affirmatively allege both states.”); Fifty Assocs. v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 446 F.2d □□ 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1970) (“The facts must be alleged from which it may be determined 6|| of which state, or states, the corporation is ‘deemed’ to be a citizen—i.e. the state in 7 || which it was incorporated and the state in which it has its principal place of business.”’). 8 Accordingly, 9 IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ stipulation (Doc. 10) is denied without || prejudice. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 21, Progressive Corporation and Progressive Casualty Company are dropped and Progressive Direct Insurance 13} Company is added. The Clerk of Court is directed to update the docket (but not to || amend the case caption). 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Progressive Direct Insurance Company shall 16]| file an amended notice of removal properly stating a jurisdictional basis for this action 17 || within 14 days of the date of this order. 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Progressive Direct Insurance Company fails 19|| to file an amended notice of removal within 14 days, the Clerk of Court shall remand this || action to state court without further notice. 21 Dated this 19th day of November, 2024. 22 23 Lm ae” 24 f □ _o——— Dominic W. Lanza 25 United States District Judge 26 27 28

-4-