Case Information
*1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA CHRISTOPHE B. SZAPARY CIVIL ACTION and HEATHER D. SZAPARY
versus NO. 06-6419 AUTO CLUB FAMILY INSURANCE SECTION: E/1 COMPANY
ORDER AND REASONS
Plaintiffs (collectively, “Szapary”) filed a motion to remand this case to the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. Record document #9. Defendant Auto Club Family Insurance Company (“ACFIC”) opposes the motion.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Szapary’s home in New Orleans sustained extensive damage as a result of “excessive wind pressures, rain, debris and fallen trees” caused by Hurricane Katrina. Complaint, ¶2. Szapary carried a homeowner’s insurance policy issued by ACFIC that provided a total of about $350,000.00 in coverage for the dwelling, other structures and contents. Id., ¶4. He made a timely claim on his insurance policy. Id., ¶7. ACFIC denied full payment for the damages claimed. Id., ¶8. Szapary filed suit in state court against ACFIC pursuant to La.R.S. 22:685, 1214 and 1220 et seq. of the State Insurance Code, alleging that ACFIC’s actions were arbitrary, capricious and without probable *2 cause. Id., ¶¶11-14. ACFIC is a foreign insurance company doing business in Louisiana. Id., ¶1. In his Complaint, at ¶15 Part G, Szapary claims that his damages exceed $75,000.00.
ACFIC removed to the federal district court, alleging diversity jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1332, or alternatively, supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 1441(e)(1)(B) because it is also a defendant in another case which has been or could have been brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1369 (Multiparty, Multiforum Trial Jurisdiction Act or “MMTJA”). Petition for Removal, R.d. #1. In its Petition for Removal, ACFIC also requests that this matter be consolidated with Aaron et al v. AIG Centennial Insurance Co. et al, C.A. No. 06-4767, Sec. “R”, or Chehardy v. Wooley, C.A. No. 05-1140, consolidated as No. 06-1672, with lead case In re: Katrina Breaches Litigation-Berthelot et al v. Boh Brothers Construction Co., L.L.C. et al, C.A. No. 05-4182, because ACFIC is a defendant in that case.
ANALYSIS
Statutes conferring removal jurisdiction are strictly construed in favor of remand. Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 61 S.Ct. 868 (1941); Manguno v. Prudential Property and Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720, 723 (5 Cir. 2002). The burden is on the removing party to show that federal jurisdiction exists *3 and that removal was proper. De Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 47 F.3d 1404, 1408 (5 th Cir. 1995). The jurisdictional facts supporting removal are examined at the time of removal. Gebbia v. Walmart Stores, Inc., 223 F.3d 880, 883 (5 Cir. 2000).
Szapary argues that the case should be remanded because there is no federal question or federal issue, and the state has a “clear and compelling interest” in presiding over the litigation of Hurricane Katrina homeowner’s insurance damage claims. However, the facts apparent on the face of the Complaint support diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332. There is complete diversity between the plaintiffs and the defendant, and the amount in controversy is in excess of $75,000.00. This Court need not address the arguments regarding supplemental jurisdiction 28 U.S.C. 1441(e)(1)(B) and 28 U.S.C. 1369.
Szapary alternatively requests that the Court deny ACFIC’s request that this matter be consolidated with Aaron, Chehardy and/or Berthelot. This case has no issues related to the Valued Policy Law, the storm surge, application of flood policies, or the levee breaches, all issues apparent in the Aaron, Chehardy and/or Berthelot cases. Consolidation of Szapary’s individual damage claim with these cases would not serve the interests of judicial economy and efficiency.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Szapary’s motion to remand is DENIED ; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that ACFIC’s request that this matter be consolidated with Aaron, Chehardy and/or Berthelot is DENIED. 9th New Orleans, Louisiana, November , 2006.
______________________________ MARCEL LIVAUDAIS, JR.
Senior United States District Judge