Guillory v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co
1:23-cv-00065
W.D. La.Jul 3, 2024Background
- Bridgette Guillory sued her homeowner’s insurer, State Farm, in Louisiana state court for damages related to Hurricane Laura.
- Guillory alleged State Farm failed to investigate her claim or assign a claim number after she reported her home’s damage.
- State Farm removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, and the court implemented a Streamlined Settlement Process (SSP), including required initial disclosures and mediation.
- State Farm claimed Guillory did not provide initial disclosures or fully participate in the SSP but did not raise these issues with the Special Master before the case moved to formal litigation.
- After the Special Master certified the parties' compliance with the SSP, the case proceeded to discovery and litigation. State Farm then moved to dismiss for SSP noncompliance.
- The court considered whether dismissal under Rule 41 or as a discovery sanction under Rule 37 was appropriate at this stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dismissal for failure to make initial disclosures | Guillory opposed dismissal; compliance was certified by the Special Master | Alleged failure to provide initial disclosures and participate in SSP, warranting dismissal | Motion to dismiss denied—argument untimely and not proven |
| Applicability of Rule 41(b) vs. Rule 37 for dismissal | Rule 37 governs discovery sanctions | Sought dismissal under Rule 41(b) for noncompliance | Rule 37 governs; Rule 41(b) inappropriate here |
| Willfulness or fault of plaintiff (not attorney) | No admitted willful or bad faith conduct | No formal proof, but alleged failure and delay | No showing Guillory (as opposed to her lawyer) was at fault |
| Effect of post-SSP litigation stage on dismissal | Parties complied as certified, moved forward | Noncompliance should justify dismissal even after SSP | SSP concluded; not grounds for dismissal at litigation stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles et Commerciales, S.A. v. Rogers, 357 U.S. 197 (Rule 37, not Rule 41, governs dismissal for discovery abuses)
- Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America v. Energy Gathering, Inc., 2 F.3d 1397 (5th Cir. 1993) (dismissal for discovery violations governed by Rule 37)
- Anderson v. Nosser, 438 F.2d 183 (5th Cir. 1971) (sanctions for noncompliance turn on willfulness or the party’s fault)