Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_15-cv-08003/USCOURTS-azd-3_15-cv-08003-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Insurance Contract

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Leigh Bennett, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

First American Property & Casualty 

Insurance Company, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-15-08003-PCT-JAT

ORDER 

 

 Before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, (Doc. 25), and motions to 

sever by Defendants American Strategic Insurance, Country Mutual Insurance Company 

Incorporated, Pharmacists Mutual Insurance Company, Farm Bureau Property and 

Casualty Company, and Allstate Insurance Company (collectively, “Removing 

Defendants”). (Docs. 19, 21, 22, 30, 40). The Court now rules on the motions. 

I. Background 

 This case involves insurance-related claims by sixteen plaintiffs against fourteen 

defendants. The claims all center on a January, 2013 fire in Yarnell, Arizona that 

destroyed Plaintiffs’ homes. Removing Defendants are insurance companies that insured 

Plaintiffs’ homes at the time of the fire. 

 The state court granted motions to sever submitted by Removing Defendants. 

Case 3:15-cv-08003-JAT Document 60 Filed 05/01/15 Page 1 of 5
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

(Doc. 1-1, Exh. D). Apparently, however, the state court did not assign separate case 

numbers to the severed cases before Removing Defendants removed their cases to federal 

court. (Doc. 19-1, Exh. A). As a result, when Removing Defendants removed, the cases 

were removed together as though no severance had taken place. (Id.). 

 Removing Defendants request that this court “administratively” sever their cases 

to match the order issued by the state court. (Docs. 19, 21, 22, 30, 40). Specifically, they 

request that, in accordance with the state court order, certain parties be allowed to litigate 

their claims separate from the cases to which they were joined, as follows: 

 Plaintiff Michael Manone v. Defendant Farm Bureau Property and Casualty 

Company (Doc. 1-1, Exh. D; Doc. 1-1 at 54) 

 Plaintiffs Laurie and Kenneth Colvin v. Defendant American Strategic Insurance 

(Doc. 1-1, Exh. D; Doc. 9-2 at 133-34) 

 Plaintiff Bobby Lewis v. Defendant Allstate Insurance Company (Doc. 1-1, 

Exh. D; Doc. 9-3 at 55) 

 Plaintiffs Shelli and Norbert Laskowski v. Defendant Pharmacists Mutual 

Insurance Company (Doc. 1-1, Exh. D; Doc. 1-5 at 6) 

 Plaintiffs Judy and Thomas Columbus v. Defendant Country Mutual Insurance 

Company Incorporated (Doc. 1-1, Exh. D; Doc. 13-1, Exh. D at 6) 

 After the cases were removed, Plaintiffs moved to remand, stating that they intend 

to amend their complaint to join Removing Defendants’ claims adjusters as defendants. 

Plaintiff contends that the claims adjusters are Arizona residents and will therefore 

destroy diversity, divesting the Court of jurisdiction.1

II. Discussion 

 A. Motions to Sever 

 Federal courts must give full faith and credit to orders issued by state courts. 

28 U.S.C. § 1738. This means that the state court decision at issue must be given the 

 

1

 Defendants contend that the Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(b) and 1332(a)(1), the removal and diversity jurisdiction statutes. 

Case 3:15-cv-08003-JAT Document 60 Filed 05/01/15 Page 2 of 5
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

same effect that it would have in the courts of the state from which the decision emerged.

Kremer v. Chem. Const. Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 466 (1982). 

 Plaintiffs’ briefs in opposition to Removing Defendants’ motions to sever do not 

address the issue of preclusion, and instead attempt to re-litigate the severance and 

joinder issues clearly decided by the state court before removal. This is precisely what 28 

U.S.C. § 1738 is intended to prevent. See Kremer, 456 U.S. at 466 n.6. The Court will 

therefore give full faith and credit to the state court’s decision to sever Removing 

Defendants’ cases, and the cases shall be litigated separately. 

 The Court notes that there are plaintiffs and defendants from the state court cases 

that were removed to this Court despite not being included in Removing Defendants’ 

cases; specifically, Plaintiffs Eugene Criner, Elmo Criner, Kevin O’Donnell, Samuel 

Peer, and Marvel Peer, and Defendants First American Property and Casualty Insurance 

Company, State Auto Insurance Company, American Commerce Insurance Company, 

Nathaniel Edmands, Maggie Edmands, Milbank Insurance Company, and Travelers 

Commercial Insurance Company. These plaintiffs and defendants have not been removed 

and must be remanded. To the extent that the state court is treating these plaintiffs and 

defendants as having been removed, this Order shall serve as a remand of their cases to 

continue state court proceedings. 

B. Motion to Remand 

 Plaintiffs rest their motion to remand entirely on the representation that once 

remanded, “Plaintiffs will move to file a Fourth Amended Complaint naming as 

Defendants’ Arizona agents and claims adjusters.” (Doc. 25 at 2, 6). Because the claims 

adjusters are Arizona residents, Plaintiffs argue their presence as defendants will destroy 

diversity and therefore require remand. Importantly, Plaintiffs do not argue that under the 

Third Amended Complaint, the operative complaint now and at the time of removal, 

removal was improper. 

 “[J]urisdiction must be analyzed on the basis of the pleadings filed at the time of 

removal without reference to subsequent amendments.” Sparta Surgical Corp. v. Nat'l 

Case 3:15-cv-08003-JAT Document 60 Filed 05/01/15 Page 3 of 5
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Ass'n of Sec. Dealers, Inc., 159 F.3d 1209, 1213 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing Pfeiffer v. 

Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 929 F.2d 1484, 1488 (10th Cir. 1991)). In Sparta, the plaintiff 

filed an amended complaint in state court after removal, and the court refused to consider 

the amended complaint when it denied the plaintiff’s motion to remand. Id. at 1213. 

 In light of Sparta, the Court cannot consider Plaintiff’s unfiled Fourth Amended 

Complaint. Accordingly, because Plaintiffs’ motion to remand depends entirely on the 

joinder of Removing Defendants’ agents to the current complaint, Plaintiffs’ Motion to 

Remand must be denied. 

III. Conclusion 

 For the foregoing reasons, 

IT IS ORDERED that Removing Defendants’ motions to sever, (Docs. 19, 21, 

22, 30, 40), are GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court shall assign separate case numbers 

to the notices of removal at docket numbers 7, 9, 10, and 13. This Court will retain this 

case, but the Clerk of Court shall assign the remaining cases to other judges within the 

District using the random draw. The parties in those cases shall be as follows: 

 Plaintiffs Laurie and Kenneth Colvin v. Defendant American Strategic Insurance 

(Notice of Removal at Doc. 7) 

 Plaintiff Bobby Lewis v. Defendant Allstate Insurance Company (Notice of 

Removal at Doc. 9) 

 Plaintiffs Shelli and Norbert Laskowski v. Defendant Pharmacists Mutual 

Insurance Company (Notice of Removal at Doc. 10) 

 Plaintiffs Judy and Thomas Columbus v. Defendant Country Mutual Insurance 

Company Incorporated (Notice of Removal at Doc. 13). 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Eugene Criner, Elmo Criner, Kevin 

O’Donnell, Samuel Peer, and Marvel Peer, and Defendants First American Property and 

Casualty Insurance Company, State Auto Insurance Company, American Commerce 

Insurance Company, Nathaniel Edmands, Maggie Edmands, Milbank Insurance 

Company, and Travelers Commercial Insurance Company are remanded to state court.

Case 3:15-cv-08003-JAT Document 60 Filed 05/01/15 Page 4 of 5
- 5 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 25) is 

DENIED. 

 Dated this 1st day of May, 2015. 

Case 3:15-cv-08003-JAT Document 60 Filed 05/01/15 Page 5 of 5