Brown v. Doe
0:17-cv-02333
| D.S.C. | Jan 8, 2018Background
- Sharon L. Brown sued an unknown driver (John Doe) for negligence arising from a rear-end accident that occurred in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina on Oct. 31, 2014; Brown was driving an employer-owned vehicle.
- Plaintiff served Protective Insurance Company (Protective), the employer’s uninsured/underinsured motorist carrier, via the S.C. DMV; Protective then removed the case to federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction and that it was the real party in interest.
- GEICO (Plaintiff’s personal carrier) later consented to removal and asserted insurers should be treated as real parties in interest; both insurers argued John Doe is a North Carolina citizen because the accident occurred there.
- Brown contested removal, arguing South Carolina law bars naming insurers and that Protective is not a real party in interest; she also argued John Doe is likely a South Carolina citizen based on commuting patterns.
- The court held a hearing and addressed two core questions: (1) whether John Doe’s citizenship may be attributed as North Carolina; and (2) whether non-party insurers (Protective and GEICO) may remove the state action to federal court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether John Doe’s citizenship defeats diversity | Doe likely a South Carolina citizen because commuters from SC use the ramp where the accident occurred | John Doe should be treated as a North Carolina citizen because the accident occurred in NC | Court held plaintiff's speculation insufficient; John Doe treated as NC citizen — complete diversity exists |
| Whether non-party insurers may remove the action | Protective is not a real party in interest; removal improper under SC practice | Protective and GEICO claim S.C. Code § 38-77-160 lets insurers appear for insureds and act as real parties in interest to remove | Court held non-party insurers lack removal authority; state statute does not override federal removal rules; remand required |
| Whether S.C. Code § 38‑77‑160 authorizes removal by insurer | Insurer cannot be treated as a defendant for removal simply by state statute or practice | Insurers rely on § 38-77-160 and cited Tennessee authority to claim control/real-party status | Court followed prior D.S.C. authority: state statute inapplicable to federal removal; removal governed by federal law, so insurers cannot remove |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
- Strawn v. AT & T Mobility LLC, 530 F.3d 293 (4th Cir. 2008) (burden of establishing federal diversity jurisdiction rests on removing party)
- Mulcahey v. Columbia Organic Chemicals Co., Inc., 29 F.3d 148 (4th Cir. 1994) (removing defendant bears burden to establish subject matter jurisdiction)
- Sligh v. Doe, 596 F.2d 1169 (4th Cir. 1979) (courts may consider factual inferences to support unknown defendant's citizenship if affirmative evidence exists)
- Johnson v. General Motors, 242 F. Supp. 778 (E.D. Va.) (where accident occurred in state, it may be more probable that unknown driver is a citizen of that state)
- Anderson v. Khanna, 827 F. Supp. 2d 970 (S.D. Iowa 2011) (non-party to state proceeding has no right to remove to federal court)