Hauser, III v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
- Nelson Roman
- 7:21-cv-04673
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 42
In Hauser, III v. State Farm, Judge Roman denied the request to return the case to state court and denied State Farm’s request for clearer pleading.
Joseph Hauser III, Joseph T. Hauser, Jr., State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and their counsel; the case remained in federal court unless the plaintiffs later filed a proper remand motion.
What happened
In Joseph Hauser III & Joseph T. Hauser, Jr. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, State Farm removed the case from New York state court to federal court, citing diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiffs then sought to send it back to state court.
The court denied the plaintiffs’ application to remand the case, without prejudice to filing a proper remand motion. It allowed the plaintiffs to file such a motion under a set briefing schedule. The court also denied State Farm’s request for a more definite statement, without prejudice, because the plaintiffs had filed a verified complaint; State Farm could pursue another motion after filing a new pre-motion letter.
Judge Nelson S. Roman also ordered plaintiffs’ counsel to file a notice of appearance, held State Farm’s responsive-pleading deadline in abeyance through June 14, 2021, and directed the Clerk to terminate State Farm’s motion.
The detailed version
- Hauser, III v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company · No. 7:21-cv-04673
- Nelson Roman
- June 8, 2021
Background
The plaintiffs began the action in New York Supreme Court, Rockland County, by filing a summons with notice. The filing described the matter as a breach-of-insurance-contract action involving excess coverage and sought monetary damages and other relief. State Farm filed a notice of appearance and demand for a complaint, and then removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. State Farm asserted diversity jurisdiction, stating that the plaintiffs were New York citizens, that State Farm was an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois, and that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
After removal, the plaintiffs filed papers opposing removal. Their stated basis was that State Farm operated and conducted business in New York. The court explained that a corporation’s citizenship for diversity purposes depends on its state of incorporation and principal place of business, not simply on whether it conducts business in a state. The plaintiffs also filed a verified complaint while the removal dispute was pending.
Rulings
The court denied the plaintiffs’ application to remand the case to state court without prejudice to seeking that relief through a proper motion. The court identified two problems with the plaintiffs’ papers: they had not first sought the required pre-motion conference and their stated basis for remand was substantively insufficient. The court granted the plaintiffs leave to file a proper remand motion if they had a colorable basis for doing so, and set deadlines for serving moving papers, opposition papers, and reply papers. The court directed that all motion papers be filed on August 24, 2021.
The court separately denied State Farm’s pre-motion application for a more definite statement without prejudice. A motion for a more definite statement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) asks for clarification when a pleading is too unclear to answer. The court found State Farm’s proposed motion largely moot because the plaintiffs had filed a verified complaint. The court allowed State Farm to submit a new pre-motion letter by June 14, 2021 if it still wanted to seek a more definite statement or move to dismiss the complaint. The court held State Farm’s responsive-pleading deadline in abeyance through June 14, 2021.
Additional Orders and Effect
The court ordered plaintiffs’ counsel to immediately file a notice of appearance and directed State Farm to serve a copy of the endorsement on plaintiffs’ counsel and file proof of service. The court stated that further failure to file the notice could result in costs being imposed on plaintiffs’ counsel. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 7. The opinion addressed removal, filing requirements, and the sequencing of motions; it did not decide whether State Farm breached the insurance policy or whether the plaintiffs were entitled to damages.
Read the full 42-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.