Robertson v. Safepoint Insurance Company

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
AMY ROBERTSON 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 24-1172
SAFEPOINT INSURANCE COMPANY 	SECTION “O”
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is the unopposed motion1 of Plaintiff Amy Robertson to
remand this first-party insurance dispute to the Civil District Court for the Parish of
Orleans. On February 29, 2024, Plaintiff brought this action 2 against SafePoint
Insurance Company in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. On May 8,
2024, Defendant SafePoint Insurance filed a notice of removal 3 to this Court based
on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
During a recent 30(b)(6) corporate deposition of Defendant Safepoint, Jennifer
Cotugno, the corporate representative, testified that Cajun Underwriters Reciprocal
Exchange, 	rather 	than 	Safepoint 	Insurance 	Company, 	is 	the 	proper
defendant/insurer for the June 15, 2022 property loss made the basis of this
litigation. 4 On January 27, 2026, based on this testimony, Plaintiff filed, and
Defendant Safepoint did not oppose, a motion 5 for leave to file Plaintiff’s First
Amended Petition for Damages. The unopposed motion was granted, and Cajun
1 ECF No. 45.
2 ECF No. 1-3.
3 ECF No. 1.
4 ECF No. 32.
5 Id.
Case 2:24-cv-01172-BSL-MBN Document 49 Filed 02/13/26 Page 1 of 4

2
Underwriters Reciprocal Exchange 6 was added as a Defendant in this matter. Cajun
Underwriters Reciprocal Exchange is alleged to be a Louisiana citizen,7 which if true
would make the parties no longer completely diverse as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions between
citizens of different states when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive
of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). For diversity jurisdiction to exist, there
must be complete diversity between the parties. McLaughlin v. Miss. Power Co., 376
F.3d 344, 353 (5th Cir. 2004). Having a plaintiff and a defendant who are citizens of
the same state ordinarily destroys complete diversity. Id. (quoting Harrison v.
Prather, 404 F.2d 267, 272 (5th Cir. 1968)). “Citizenship for an individual is
synonymous with the person’s domicile; for a corporation, it is that of the state in
which it is incorporated and the state where it has its principal place of business.”
English v. Aramark Corp., 858 F.App’x 115, 116 (5th Cir. 2021) (citing Mullins v.
TestAmerica, Inc., 564 F.3d 386, 397 n.6 (5th Cir. 2009)).
“[F]or purposes of determining the existence of diversity jurisdiction, the
citizenship of the parties is to be determined with reference to the facts as they
existed at the time of filing.” Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Glob. Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567,
569–70 (2004). Once jurisdiction is properly established, subsequent events will
generally not divest the court of jurisdiction. Freeport-McMoran, Inc. v. K N Energy,
Inc., 498 U.S. 426, 428 (1991). Nevertheless, “[i]f at any time before final judgment it
appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be
6 ECF No. 38.
7 Id. at 1.
Case 2:24-cv-01172-BSL-MBN Document 49 Filed 02/13/26 Page 2 of 4

3
remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); see also Hager v. Thomas, No. 18-cv-139, 2019 WL
13200643, at *1 (S.D. Miss. Apr. 9, 2019) (“Federal courts are duty-bound to examine
their own jurisdiction and not proceed where it is apparent that jurisdiction does not
exist.”).
The addition of a nondiverse party is one event that defeats jurisdiction.
Hensgens v. Deere & Co., 833 F.2d 1179, 1181 (5th Cir. 1987) (citing Owen Equip. &
Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978)). As explained by the Supreme Court,
“when a plaintiff files a complaint in federal court and then voluntarily amends the
complaint, courts look to the amended complaint to determine jurisdiction.” Rockwell
Int’l 	Corp. 	v. 	United 	States, 	549 	U.S. 	457, 	473–74 	(2007). 	When 	a 	plaintiff’s
amendment after removal would destroy subject matter jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1447(e) applies. Section 1447(e) provides that, “[i]f after removal the plaintiff seeks
to join additional defendants whose joinder would destroy subject matter jurisdiction,
the court may . . . permit joinder and remand the action to the State court.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1447(e); see also Cobb v. Delta Exps., Inc., 186 F.3d 675, 677 (5th Cir. 1999) (“[P]ost-
removal joinder of non-diverse defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 destroys
diversity for jurisdictional purposes and requires remand, even when the newly
joined defendants are not indispensable.”).
Here, Plaintiff claims that Cajun Underwriters Reciprocal Exchange is a
Louisiana citizen.8 Defendant does not dispute this fact. Because Plaintiff is also a
citizen of Louisiana, 9 according to Plaintiff’s unopposed motion, the addition of Cajun
8 ECF No. 38 at 1.
9 ECF No. 1-3.
Case 2:24-cv-01172-BSL-MBN Document 49 Filed 02/13/26 Page 3 of 4

4
Underwriters Reciprocal Exchange to this lawsuit destroys complete diversity. It thus
follows that Plaintiff’s first amended petition for damages 10 vitiates the Court’s
subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and Plaintiff’s claims must be
remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e).
Accordingly,
IT 	IS 	ORDERED 	that 	Plaintiff’s 	unopposed 	motion 	to 	remand 11 	is
GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims are REMANDED
to the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 13th day of February, 2026.
BRANDON S. LONG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10 ECF No. 38.
11 ECF No. 45.
Case 2:24-cv-01172-BSL-MBN Document 49 Filed 02/13/26 Page 4 of 4