Gomez-Ortigoza et al v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company
| Danie Gomez-Ortigoza and Nicolas Guillant |
| Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company, Garrett Martin, Sherri Crossland, Peter Salzarula and Property Insurance Company |
| 3:2024cv02097 |
| August 16, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Texas |
| Ed Kinkeade |
| Contract: Insurance |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 11, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 13
ORDER: The Court REMANDS this case to the 101st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1447(c). (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 9/11/2024) (Attachments: #1 Remand Letter) (axm)
|
| Filing 12 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS/DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Nicolas Guillant. (Clerk QC note: No affiliate entered in ECF). (Sigman, Rene) |
| Filing 11 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS/DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Danie Gomez-Ortigoza. (Clerk QC note: No affiliate entered in ECF). (Sigman, Rene) |
| Filing 10 AMENDED NOTICE OF REMOVAL against All Plaintiffs filed by Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company. (One or more defendant(s) is no longer named.) Unless exempted, attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas must seek admission promptly. Forms, instructions, and exemption information may be found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov, or by clicking here: # Attorney Information - Bar Membership. If admission requirements are not satisfied within 21 days, the clerk will notify the presiding judge. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s) A - Index of Matters, #2 Exhibit(s) B - State Court Docket Sheet, #3 Exhibit(s) C - State Court Documents, #4 Exhibit(s) D - Notice to State Court of Removal, #5 Exhibit(s) E - Defendant's Certificate of Interested Parties, #6 Exhibit(s) F - Counsel of Record, #7 Exhibit(s) G - Email to State Court re Order dismissing co-defendants with prejudice) (Morgan, Layla) Modified event text on 8/30/2024 (knb). |
|
Filing 9
ELECTRONIC ORDER: On August 19, 2024, the Court entered an order identifying certain jurisdictional defects with Defendant Allstate's Notice of Removal, as well as a procedural defect with the removal process. Doc. No. 3. Emphasizing that subject matter jurisdiction appeared to be lacking, the Court ordered Defendant Allstate to file an amended notice of removal curing the jurisdictional defects by August 26, 2024, otherwise the Court would remand the case. Defendant Allstate did not file an amended notice of removal by said deadline.If Defendant Allstate does not file an amended notice of removal by 3:00 p.m., August 28, 2024, the Court will construe its silence as Defendant Allstate's consent to remand the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 8/27/2024) (chmb)
|
| Filing 8 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File To Proceed Without Local Counsel filed by Danie Gomez-Ortigoza, Nicolas Guillant (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s) A, #2 Proposed Order) (Sigman, Rene) |
| Filing 7 New Case Notes: A filing fee has been paid. Pursuant to Misc. Order 6, Plaintiff is provided the Notice of Right to Consent to Proceed Before A U.S. Magistrate Judge (Judge Horan). Clerk to provide copy to plaintiff if not received electronically. (kaf) |
|
Filing 6
ELECTRONIC ORDER: In a case before the court on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S. C. 1332(a), Rule 7.1(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that each party's disclosure statement "name--and identify the citizenship of--every individual or entity whose citizenship is attributed to that party[.]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a)(2) (emphasis added).Allstate timely filed its Disclosure Statement and Certificate of Interested Parties (Doc. No. 1-5) but it does not include the required citizenship disclosure statement. Allstate shall file an amended disclosure statement/certificate of interested persons which includes the required statement of Allstate's citizenship within 2 days of amending its Notice of Removal. See Doc. No. 3. If Allstate files an amended disclosure statement/certificate of interested persons on behalf of all named Defendants to this action, this amended document shall include a separate citizenship statement for each named Defendant as required under Rule 7.1(a)(2).Plaintiffs shall ensure that their certificate of interested persons contains a separate citizenship disclosure statement for each Plaintiff as required by Rule 7.1(a)(2). See L. Civ. R. 81.2 (plaintiff shall file separately signed certificate of interested persons within 21 of the notice of removal). (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 8/19/2024) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 5
ORDER: This Order governs requests to file materials in this case under seal. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 8/19/2024) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 4
ELECTRONIC ORDER: Local Civil Rule 83.10(a) requires the appearance of local counsel where the attorney of record for a party does not reside or maintain their principal office in this district. By September 6, 2024, Plaintiffs Danie Gomez-Ortigoza and Nicolas Guillant, shall file the entry of appearance of local counsel satisfying the requirements of Local Civil Rule 83.10(a). Failure to do so may result in sanctions being imposed for failure to comply with an order of the Court. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 8/19/2024) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 3
ELECTRONIC ORDER: The Court has "an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party." Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (citing Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999)). Defendant Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company ("Allstate") removed this case to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. 1332(a). Doc. No. 1 at 2-3. The party invoking federal diversity jurisdiction has the burden to prove both complete diversity of the parties' citizenship and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Garcia v. Koch Oil Co. of Tex., 351 F.3d 636, 638-39 (5th Cir. 2003). Allstate does not meet its burden on this removal record."When jurisdiction depends on citizenship, citizenship must be 'distinctly and affirmatively alleged.'" Getty Oil Corp., a Div. of Texaco v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 841 F.2d 1254, 1259 (5th Cir. 1988). Allstate alleges its own citizenship and that of both Plaintiffs. But Allstate completely omits any allegations (citizenship or otherwise) or even reference to the other three named Defendants--Peter Salzarulo, Sherri Crossland, and Garrett Martin. The Court must know the citizenship of every named Defendant and every Defendant "who has been properly joined and served must join in or consent to the removal of the action." 1446(b)(2)(A). It appears from the removal record that all named Defendants have been served and answered in state court prior to removal. Further, a civil action "may not be removed [under 1332(a)] if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought." 1441(b)(2); see Doc. No. 1-3 at 4 (petition alleges Defendant Garrett Martin resides in Wichita Falls, Texas); id. at 51 (affidavit that service was effectuated on Defendant Garrett Martin in Wichita Falls, Texas). The Court "must presume that a suit lies outside [its] limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction rests on the party seeking the federal forum." Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912, 916 (5th Cir. 2001). Allstate failed to "distinctly and affirmatively" allege the citizenship of every party and, therefore, did not meet its burden. Getty Oil, 841 F.2d at 1259. Allstate may amend its Notice of Removal in accordance with this Order no later than August 26, 2024. If Allstate fails to amend or fails to do so sufficiently, the Court will remand this case without further notice. See 28 U.S.C. 1447(c) (in action removed from state court, federal court must remand case any time before final judgment if court determines it lacks subject matter jurisdiction). (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 8/19/2024) (chmb)
|
| Filing 2 ***DISREGARD PER ATTORNEY*** NOTICE of SERVICE OF RULE 26 INITIAL DISCLOSURES filed by Danie Gomez-Ortigoza, Nicolas Guillant (Sigman, Rene) Modified on 8/19/2024 (kcr). |
| Deadlines set re: 3 Electronic Order. Amended Pleadings due by 8/26/2024. (kaf) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL WITH JURY DEMAND filed by Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company. (Filing fee $405; receipt number ATXNDC-14847506) In each Notice of Electronic Filing, the judge assignment is indicated, and a link to the # Judges Copy Requirements and # Judge Specific Requirements is provided. The court reminds the filer that any required copy of this and future documents must be delivered to the judge, in the manner prescribed, within three business days of filing. Unless exempted, attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas must seek admission promptly. Forms and Instructions found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov, or by clicking here: # Attorney Information - Bar Membership. If admission requirements are not satisfied within 21 days, the clerk will notify the presiding judge. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s) A - Index of Matters, #2 Exhibit(s) B - State Court Docket Sheet, #3 Exhibit(s) C - State Court Documents, #4 Exhibit(s) D - Notice to State Court of Removal, #5 Exhibit(s) E - Interested Parties, #6 Exhibit(s) F - Counsel of Record) (Morgan, Layla) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Texas Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
