Trahan v. Deutsche Investment Management Americas, Inc.
2:15-cv-03039
E.D. La.Jun 5, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Norman Paul Trahan sued multiple defendants in Louisiana state court; defendants removed the case to federal court asserting complete diversity and a Truth in Lending Act federal question at the time of removal.
- At removal, federal jurisdiction was asserted under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity) and § 1331 (TILA federal question).
- After removal, most defendants and claims were dismissed, and Plaintiff moved to remand the case to state court (Rec. Doc. 101).
- Defendant Accent Title, LLC moved to dismiss (Rec. Doc. 106); Accent’s motion was set for submission and was unopposed because no opposition memorandum was timely filed under Local Rule 7.5.
- The Court denied the motion to remand, holding jurisdiction is determined by the pleadings as of the time of removal, and granted Accent Title’s motion to dismiss with prejudice as unopposed.
- The Court set a 30-day deadline for any motion for reconsideration and warned that costs and fees incurred in connection with such a motion will be assessed against the movant; procedures for seeking costs are specified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the case must be remanded to state court | Removal losing force after dismissal of many defendants; remand appropriate now | Removal was proper because complete diversity and a federal claim existed at time of removal | Denied — jurisdiction assessed at time of removal, so remand inappropriate |
| Whether Accent Title's motion to dismiss should be granted | Opposed dismissal on merits (no timely opposition filed) | Sought dismissal; motion noticed and supported | Granted with prejudice — motion deemed unopposed under Local Rule 7.5 |
Key Cases Cited
- Preston v. Tenet Healthsys. Mem’l Med. Ctr., Inc., 485 F.3d 804 (5th Cir. 2007) (removal/remand standard and timing)
- Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912 (5th Cir. 2001) (burden of proving federal jurisdiction on removing party)
- Gasch v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 491 F.3d 278 (5th Cir. 2007) (removal statute construed strictly)
- Acuna v. Brown & Root Inc., 200 F.3d 335 (5th Cir. 2000) (doubts about removal resolved against federal jurisdiction)
- Maguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720 (5th Cir. 2002) (jurisdiction assessed by state petition as of time of removal)
- Cavallini v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 44 F.3d 256 (5th Cir. 1995) (policy reasons for fixing removal jurisdiction at time of removal)