Opinion ID: 613226
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Preponderance of the Evidence Intention to Remain in Texas

Text: The evidentiary standard for establishing citizenship and domicile at this preliminary stage must be practical and reasonable: The requisite showing under CAFA prompts this court to reconcile congressional intent, our precedent for determining citizenship, and judicial economy. Thus, the evidentiary standard for establishing the domicile of more than one hundred plaintiffs must be based on practicality and reasonableness. Preston II, supra, 485 F.3d at 813. Citizenship, for purposes of proving an exception to CAFA, must be analyzed as of the date the complaint or amended complaint was filed. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(7); Preston I, 485 F.3d at 798; Martin v. Lafon Nursing Facility, 548 F.Supp.2d 268, 271 (E.D.La.2008). In Joseph v. Unitrin, Inc. ( Unitrin ), 2008 WL 3822938,  (E.D.Tex.), the district court addressed whether a claim against insurers for cancellation of insurance coverage for dwellings, household goods, and wearing apparel should be remanded to state court. The class action plaintiffs in Unitrin, like the Insurance Companies here, argued that the local controversy exception to class action diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(A), prevented the court from exercising jurisdiction because greater than two-thirds of the proposed class members were citizens of Texas. Unitrin, supra, at 2. The insurance companies in Unitrin responded that the insured had failed to offer sufficient proof that more than two-thirds of the proposed class members were Texas citizens. Id. In Unitrin, the court analyzed the evidence of citizenship and noted that the proposed class was made up of Texas residents who are policyholders whose policies were cancelled and there was no evidence of a mass exodus of more than one-third of the proposed class from Texas during the applicable time period. Id. The court also noted that one of the insurer defendants, like the County Mutuals here, was limited by Texas law to writing homeowners insurance only in Texas. Id. The court reasoned that [b]ecause the putative class members are alleged to be Texas residents, logic dictates that their homes, and by extension, their domicile, remain in Texas. Id. The court further noted that because the policies cover both the residence and the household affects, it can be assumed that the members of the putative class own both real and personal property in Texas. Id. Ultimately, the court held that [i]n light of these factors and the discrete nature of the proposed class, [the class action plaintiffs] need not produce additional evidence in order to demonstrate that more than two-thirds of the potential plaintiffs are Texas citizens. Id. Like the class action plaintiffs in Unitrin, the Insurance Companies here produced evidence of (1) insurance of personal property (motor vehicles  likely garaged at the residence of the owner) located in Texas and (2) authority of county mutual insurers under Texas law to write auto insurance only for vehicles located in Texas. See Tex. Ins.Code § 912.151 (A county insurance company that qualifies for statewide operation may write all lines of automobile insurance. (Emphasis added.).) Additionally, the courts have acknowledged that where a proposed class is discrete in nature, a common sense presumption should be utilized in determining whether citizenship requirements have been met. See Bennett, 2007 WL 2571942, at ; Caruso v. Allstate Insurance Company, 469 F.Supp.2d 364, 368 (E.D.La. 2007). For example, in Caruso, the plaintiffs sought to represent a class that included all Louisiana homeowners who had purchased homeowner's policies from one of six insurance companies named as defendants to the action. Id. at 367. Because owning a home is an indicium of a person's domicile, the court held that the plaintiff's own characterizations of the class, particularly plaintiffs' assertions that they represented a class of individuals covered by homeowner's policies for homes located in Louisiana, created a reliable presumption that the class was comprised of Louisiana citizens. Id.; Dunham v. Coffeyville Res., L.L.C., 2007 WL 3283774, at  (D.Kan. Nov. 6, 2007) (finding that plaintiffs' characterization of class as residents, domiciliaries, and property owners of Coffeyville, Kansas demonstrated its local nature). The Insured, more likely than not (or by a preponderance of the evidence), garaged their cars in Texas. Registering a motor vehicle and insuring it in Texas is some evidence of an intent to remain in Texas  at least for a while. Unlike owning a second home, a vehicle owner is more likely than not inclined to wait until actual relocation to register and insure a vehicle. The Insured produced no evidence that any potential class member intended to establish a domicile outside of Texas. Based on the statistical evidence produced by the Insurance Companies, the district court correctly concluded that two-thirds or more of the Insured's proposed class of insurance policy holders were citizens of Texas with both residency and the intention to remain in Texas, by a preponderance of the evidence, at the time the Insured filed their complaint.