LeBlanc v. Hardy ( 2021 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA SHON’QUELL LEBLANC CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 20-3157 GREGORY Y. HARDY, ET AL. SECTION “R” (3) ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court is defendant USAA Casualty Insurance Company’s (“USAA”) motion for reconsideration1 of the Court’s order2 remanding this case to state court. USAA filed the motion in its capacity as the excess lability insurer of defendant Janet Blocker. Plaintiff Shon’Quell LeBlanc opposes the motion.3 This case arises out of an automobile-pedestrian crash. On January 15, 2020, plaintiff filed suit in state court against defendants Gregory Hardy, Janet Blocker, and USAA, as the primary liability insurer of Blocker and Hardy (“USAA-Primary”).4 On June 25, 2020, plaintiff amended her state- 1 R. Doc. 25. 2 R. Doc. 23. 3 R. Doc. 28. 4 R. Doc. 1-3 at 1-5. court complaint to add USAA as a defendant in its capacity as the excess liability insurer of Blocker (“USAA-Excess”).5 On November 19, 2020, defendants Hardy, Blocker, and USAA- Primary6 removed the case to federal court, contending that the diversity requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) were met.7 Defendants attached to their notice of removal an affidavit by Blocker, stating that, at the time of the accident, she was living only temporarily in New Orleans.8 She attested that her permanent home was in Houston, Texas.9 On April 26, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion to strike Blocker’s affidavit and remand the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.10 Plaintiff asserted that Blocker was a nondiverse party, living at a residential facility in New Orleans, and maintaining a phone number bearing a New Orleans area code.11 Defendants Hardy, Blocker, and USAA-Primary initially opposed 5 Id. at 10-11. 6 In its notice of removal and subsequent motions, USAA-Primary did not specify that it was proceeding only in its primary-insurer capacity, i.e., as distinct from USAA-Excess. But USAA-Excess has had separate counsel since removal, see R. Doc. 4 at 2, and its counsel did not file or sign onto any documents in this case prior to filing the present motion for reconsideration. 7 R. Doc. 1. 8 R. Doc. 1-1. 9 Id. ¶ 21. 10 R. Doc. 15. 11 R. Doc. 15-1 at 1-2. plaintiff’s motion,12 but later withdrew their opposition.13 USAA-Excess, represented by separate counsel,14 never responded to the motion for remand, nor otherwise showed that plaintiff’s claims against it vested this Court with subject-matter jurisdiction. On May 28, 2021, the Court granted plaintiff’s motion, and remanded the matter to state court based on a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.15 Federal law provides that “[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (emphasis added). Indeed, “[n]ot only may the order not be appealed, but the district court itself is divested of jurisdiction to reconsider the matter.” New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. Majoue, 802 F.2d 166, 167 (5th Cir. 1986). Therefore, even if the court “later decides the order was erroneous, a remand order cannot be vacated even by the district court.” Id.; see also Loeb v. Vergara, No. 18-3165, 2018 WL 3374162, at *1 (E.D. La. July 11, 2018) (denying defendant’s motion to reconsider a remand based on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction). 12 R. Doc. 18. 13 R. Doc. 22. 14 R. Doc. 4 at 2. 15 R. Doc. 23. Accordingly, upon the entry of its remand order, this Court was “divested of jurisdiction to reconsider the matter.” New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc., 802 F.2d at 167. The Court thus lacks jurisdiction to reconsider its remand order. For the foregoing reasons, USAA-Excess’s motion to reconsider is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 10th _ day of September, 2021. SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE