Barlow v. United Property & Casualty Insurance Company

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
NATHAN BARLOW 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 23-16
UNITED PROPERTY & CASUALTY 	SECTION: “H”
INSURANCE COMPANY
ORDER
Before 	the 	Court 	is 	Defendant 	Louisiana 	Insurance 	Guaranty
Association’s (“LIGA”) Petition for Intervention (Doc. 12). The Court now
reviews subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte.
Plaintiff Nathan Barlow filed this federal action against his insurer,
Defendant 	United 	Property 	& 	Casualty 	Insurance 	Company 	(“UPC”) 	in
January 2023. UPC became insolvent, and the Court permanently stayed all
claims against UPC in March 2023.1 Upon LIGA’s motion, the Court granted
LIGA leave to intervene and join this action.
The Court’s 	subject matter jurisdiction is 	premised 	on 	diversity 	of
citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. However, both Plaintiff Nathan Barlow
and LIGA are Louisiana citizens. Thus, LIGA’s intervention destroys complete
diversity and the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.2
1 The Court also stayed the entire action for six months, pursuant to Louisiana Revised
Statutes § 22:2068(A). The six-month period elapsed in September 2023. However, as all
claims against the lone Defendant, UPC, were stayed indefinitely, this action remained
effectively and administratively stayed until LIGA was joined as a defendant through its
Petition for Intervention. Accordingly, the Court clarifies that, in effect, this action was
reopened and no longer stayed on July 28, 2025, once LIGA was joined.
2 See e.g. Bergeron v. United Prop. and Cas. Ins. Co., No. 22-808, 2024 WL 3175940 (E.D. La.
June 26, 2024).
Case 2:23-cv-00016-JTM-JVM Document 16 Filed 12/29/25 Page 1 of 2

2
A court must dismiss claims “for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when
the court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case.”3
However, 28 U.S.C. § 1653 provides that “[d]efective allegations of jurisdiction
may be amended, upon terms, in the trial or appellate courts.” A district court’s
decision to permit amendment under § 1653 turns on the nature of the
jurisdictional defect.4 Where “jurisdictional problems are of the ‘technical’ or
‘formal’ 	variety, 	they 	fall 	squarely 	within 	the 	ambit 	of 	§ 	1653.”5 	Thus,
amendment should be allowed where “diversity jurisdiction was not questioned
by the parties and there is no suggestion in the record that it does not in fact
exist.”6 	Here, 	the 	record 	demonstrates 	the 	absence 	of 	subject 	matter
jurisdiction, and amendment would be futile.
Accordingly,
IT 	IS 	ORDERED 	that 	this 	action 	is 	DISMISSED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that LIGA’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 15)
is DENIED AS MOOT.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 29th day of December, 2025.
____________________________________
JANE TRICHE MILAZZO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3 Home Builders Ass’n of Miss., Inc. v. City of Madison, 143 F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir. 1998).
4 Id. at 888.
5 Id.
6 Stafford v. Mobil Oil Corp., 945 F.2d 803, 806 (5th Cir. 1991) (quoting Leigh v. Nat’l
Aeronautics & Space Admin., 860 F.2d 652, 653 (5th Cir. 1988)).
Case 2:23-cv-00016-JTM-JVM Document 16 Filed 12/29/25 Page 2 of 2