Farmington Casualty Company v. HP Inc., 3:23-cv-01936

Background

May 30, 2021 house fire in Carbon County, PA (Middle District); Farmington (insurer/subrogee) alleges an HP laptop caused the fatal fire.
Farmington sued HP (and initially PenTeleData) in Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas on March 6, 2023 seeking insurance subrogation recovery.
HP removed to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on diversity grounds March 16, 2023; PenTeleData was voluntarily dismissed the next day and was not shown to have been properly joined and served at removal.
Parties: Farmington (Connecticut), HP (Delaware corp, principal place of business in California); amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
The decedents’ estate (Executrix Jordan McCoy) later filed a separate wrongful-death suit (McCoy case) in state court involving related facts.
Motions: Farmington moved to remand and to consolidate; HP moved to transfer venue to the Middle District of Pennsylvania under 28 U.S.C. §1404(a).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal diversity jurisdiction existed/removal was improper because of non-diverse parties	PenTeleData (PA) and the Estate (PA) are citizens of Pennsylvania and defeat diversity	PenTeleData was not properly joined/served and was voluntarily dismissed; the Estate is not a party; fraudulent joinder doctrine applies	Denied remand — court found complete diversity between Farmington (CT) and HP (CA); removal was proper and PenTeleData need not be considered
Whether case should be remanded or consolidated with the state McCoy wrongful-death action for judicial economy	Remand and consolidation would avoid duplicative discovery, inconsistent rulings, and conserve resources	Remand for discretionary reasons (judicial economy) is not authorized; consolidation is unavailable because the McCoy case is not before the federal court	Denied — court held it cannot remand for discretionary/policy reasons and cannot consolidate with a case not in federal court
Whether transfer of venue to the Middle District of Pennsylvania under §1404(a) is appropriate	Plaintiff prefers Eastern District (original state-court forum) and notes related McCoy case in Philadelphia	Middle District is the locus of operative facts, witnesses, and evidence; transfer is more convenient for parties and witnesses	Granted — applying Jumara factors, private and public interests strongly favor transfer to the Middle District

Key Cases Cited

Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61 (recognizes that federal jurisdiction at entry of judgment controls despite prior remand error)
Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. 267 (establishes requirement of complete diversity)
Batoff v. State Farm Ins. Co., 977 F.2d 848 (removal statutes strictly construed; doubts resolved in favor of remand)
Brown v. Francis, 75 F.3d 860 (any doubt about propriety of removal should lead to remand)
Boyer v. Snap-On Tools Corp., 913 F.2d 108 (defendant bears burden to establish removal jurisdiction and procedural compliance)
Balazik v. County of Dauphin, 44 F.3d 209 (court must remand when it lacks subject matter jurisdiction)
Thermtron Prods., Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336 (district courts may not remand for discretionary reasons outside statutory authorization)
In re Briscoe, 448 F.3d 201 (fraudulent joinder doctrine allows removal despite non-diverse defendants who lack a reasonable basis)
Abels v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 770 F.2d 26 (defines fraudulent joinder standard)
In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig., 855 F.3d 126 (jurisdictional posture at judgment is controlling)
Encompass Ins. Co. v. Stone Mansion Rest. Inc., 902 F.3d 147 (forum-defendant rule bars removal only when defendant was properly joined and served)
Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (defendant bears burden to show need for §1404(a) transfer)
Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (transfer principles and deference to movant)
Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873 (sets out private and public factors for §1404(a) transfer analysis)