United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
MARK A. TICER d/b/a LAW OFFICE OF MARK A. TICER, Plaintiff,
IMPERIUM INSURANCE COMPANY and IRONSHORE INDEMNITY, INC., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
BRANTLEY STARR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is plaintiff Mark A. Ticer's Motion for
Remand. After careful consideration, and for the reasons
provided below, the Court DENIES the motion.Therefore,
Ticer's claims against defendant Imperium Insurance
Company (Imperium) are severed and remanded to state court,
while Ticer's claims against defendant Ironshore
Indemnity, Inc. (Ironshore) will proceed, under diversity
jurisdiction, before this Court.
addressing Ticer's motion, the Court briefly provides the
facts and procedural history of this case.
does business as the Law Office of Mark A. Ticer. He is a
resident of Dallas County and a citizen of Texas. On January
17, 2019, Ticer filed a petition in the 193rd
Judicial District Court of Dallas County against defendants
Imperium and Ironshore. In his petition, Ticer alleged claims
for breach of contract, prompt pay violations, and violations
of the Texas Insurance Code. Ticer filed an amended petition
on January 29, 2019.
claims stem from Ticer's involvement in two lawsuits, and
Imperium's alleged failure to provide coverage to him
during the second lawsuit and Ironshore's alleged failure
to provide coverage to him during both lawsuits. Regarding
the first lawsuit, Ticer alleges that Ironshore assumed his
defense at trial but refused to defend him on appeal. Ticer
won his appeal and seeks coverage from Ironshore for his
out-of-pocket expenses defending his appeal. Regarding the
second lawsuit, Ticer alleges that both Ironshore and
Imperium were obligated to provide coverage for his defense,
but that Imperium refused to defend him and that Ironshore
never responded to his request for coverage.
timely removed this case to this Court under 28 U.S.C. §
1441. Ironshore, a Minnesota and New York citizen, seeks
removal based on diversity jurisdiction. Ironshore argues
that this Court possesses subject matter jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) because the amount in controversy
minimum is met and because Imperium, a Texas citizen, was
improperly joined to the lawsuit. Ironshore argues that
Imperium and Ironshore issued Ticer separate insurance
policies at different times and for different coverage.
Therefore, Ironshore maintains that Ticer's claims
against Imperium should be severed and remanded to state
court, while Ticer's claims against it should proceed
before this Court.
response, Ticer moved to remand this case to Texas state
court. Ticer argues that aside from the fact that Ironshore
did not obtain Imperium's consent for removal, removal is
impossible because Imperium was properly joined to the
lawsuit. And, according to Ticer, because Imperium
is a proper defendant and is a citizen of Texas, the forum
defendant rule proscribes removal of the case to federal
court. Ticer's motion for remand is ripe for
this Court's review.
the facts and procedural posture set, the Court provides the
applicable legal standards for removal.
defendant may remove “any civil action brought in a
State court of which the district courts of the United States
have original jurisdiction.” “For a case to be
removable based on diversity jurisdiction, ‘all persons
on one side of the controversy [must] be citizens of
different states than all persons on the other
side.'” Because Ticer and Imperium are both
citizens of Texas, diversity of citizenship does not exist
here. And so, to remove this case to ...