Pintor v. Liberty Insurance Corporation
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:22-cv-02878
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Pintor v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Judge Corley denied remand and issued procedural rulings without deciding the insurance claims.
The plaintiffs, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, and the proposed additional defendant Marcos Villeda. The order kept the case in federal court for the time being, denied or deferred the listed motions as specified, and required the plaintiffs to seek permission to amend their complaint.
What happened
In Pintor v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, the plaintiffs sued over Liberty Mutual’s denial of insurance coverage after a fire at a rented home. They alleged insurance bad faith and negligence and said they were suing as judgment creditors after obtaining default judgments against the landlord.
The court kept the case in federal court. It ruled that Liberty Mutual removed the case on time and that the later addition of Marcos Villeda, a non-diverse defendant, did not affect federal jurisdiction at the time of removal.
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denied the motion to remand, granted Liberty Mutual’s request to file a sur-reply, denied as moot the motion to set aside default, and denied without prejudice the motion to dismiss the removed complaint. The court also denied as moot the motion to dismiss the conditionally filed amended complaint and the plaintiffs’ motion to strike, and directed the plaintiffs to seek permission to amend their complaint to add Villeda.
The detailed version
- Pintor v. Liberty Insurance Corporation · No. 3:22-cv-02878
- Jacquelyn Corley
- July 7, 2022
Background
The plaintiffs filed an insurance dispute in Contra Costa County Superior Court, asserting insurance bad faith and negligence. They alleged that their landlord, Dora Alacon-Villeda, negligently started a fire in the home that the plaintiffs rented and that she owned and occupied. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company insured Alacon-Villeda but denied coverage. The plaintiffs alleged that they had previously obtained default judgments against Alacon-Villeda and sued Liberty Mutual as judgment creditors.
Liberty Mutual removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, which allows a federal court to hear certain disputes between citizens of different states. Liberty Mutual was served on April 15, 2022, and filed its notice of removal on May 16, 2022. The plaintiffs later substituted Marcos Villeda, Alacon-Villeda’s husband, as a defendant in the state-court case and filed a request for entry of default. They also filed a conditional first amended complaint in federal court naming Villeda as a defendant.
Motion to Remand
The plaintiffs argued that removal was untimely and that complete diversity was lacking. The court rejected both arguments. Because the thirtieth day after service fell on a Sunday, the removal deadline was Monday, May 16, and Liberty Mutual filed its notice that day. The company filed the correct civil cover sheet one day later, but the court treated that delay as a minor procedural defect that did not invalidate the timely removal. The court also found that Liberty Mutual promptly filed the notice with the state court.
The court held that the later state-court substitution of Marcos Villeda had no legal effect in the removed case because removal became effective when Liberty Mutual filed the notice in federal court. Without Villeda, complete diversity existed because the plaintiffs were California residents and Liberty Mutual was incorporated under Massachusetts law and had its principal place of business there. The court therefore denied the plaintiffs’ motion to remand.
Motion to Set Aside Default
Liberty Mutual moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c) to set aside the plaintiffs’ request for entry of default. The court found that Liberty Mutual had not shown that the state court actually entered default against it and explained that the motion could not establish that the federal court could set aside a default entered by a different court. Because default had not been requested or entered in the federal case, the court denied as moot Liberty Mutual’s motion to set aside default.
Motions to Dismiss and Related Motions
Liberty Mutual moved to dismiss the complaint, require a more definite statement concerning the insurance bad-faith claim, and strike the plaintiffs’ requests for attorney’s fees and punitive damages. Because the plaintiffs sought to add Villeda as a non-diverse defendant, the court denied without prejudice the motion to dismiss the removed complaint and directed the plaintiffs to seek permission to amend under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e).
The court denied as moot Liberty Mutual’s motion to dismiss the conditionally filed first amended complaint and the plaintiffs’ motion to strike Liberty Mutual’s motion. The court also granted Liberty Mutual’s motion for leave to file a sur-reply.
Next Steps Ordered by the Court
The plaintiffs were ordered to file, by August 11, 2022, a motion for leave to amend to add Villeda as a non-diverse defendant and to attach the proposed amended complaint. The court granted leave to amend to address the arguments raised in Liberty Mutual’s motions to dismiss; the motion for leave needed only to request permission to add Villeda as a defendant. The order set briefing and a hearing schedule for that motion.
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley’s order disposed of Docket Nos. 8, 9, 16, 21, 23, and 28.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.