United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Greenville Division
GEVARIUS MABRY; and CARL L. BANKS PLAINTIFFS
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE'S INSURANCE COMPANY DEFENDANT
ORDER GRANTING REMAND
M. BROWN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
motor vehicle collision action is before the Court on the
plaintiffs' motion to remand. Doc. #6.
September 6, 2016, Carl L. Banks filed a complaint in the
Circuit Court of Coahoma County, Mississippi, against C.W.
Moore and Government Employee's Insurance Company
(“GEICO”). Doc. #2. In his complaint, Banks
alleges that, on or about November 21, 2014, he was a
passenger in a vehicle driven by Gevarius Mabry which was
involved in a collision with a vehicle driven by Moore.
Id. at ¶ 5. Banks further alleges that Moore
was an uninsured motorist and that, therefore, he was
entitled to recover from GEICO under an uninsured motorist
policy. Id. at ¶ 7. The same day, Mabry, in a
separate civil action in the Circuit Court of Coahoma County,
filed a virtually identical complaint against Moore and
GEICO. Doc. #3.
state court complaints allege that “[a]s a direct and
proximate result of [the] collision, Plaintiff was caused to
suffer personal injury, pain and suffering, and medical
expenses and may reasonably anticipate incurring future
medical expenses and future pain and suffering and future
emotional and mental distress and loss of wage and earning
capacity.” Id. at ¶ 8; Doc. #2 at ¶
8. Based on these allegations, each complaint seeks a
judgment “in the amount of Seventy Thousand Dollars
($70, 000.00) together with prejudgment and post judgment
interest and costs.” Doc. #2 at 4; Doc. #3 at 4.
Additionally, both Mabry and Banks allege that they are
citizens of Mississippi, that Moore is a citizen of
Mississippi, and that “GEICO is a Maryland insurance
company, licensed and doing business in the State of
Mississippi.” Doc. #2 at ¶¶ 1-2; Doc. #3 at
March 1, 2017, the state court issued an agreed order
consolidating Mabry's action and Banks' action. Doc.
#5-17. On April 19, 2017, the state court dismissed Moore
from the consolidated action for the plaintiffs' failure
to effect service within 120 days after the filing of the
complaints. Doc. #5-20. The same day Moore was dismissed,
GEICO, invoking diversity jurisdiction, removed the state
court case to this Court. Doc. #1.
notice of removal alleges:
Plaintiffs, at the time their respective actions were
commenced, were and are believed to still be citizens of
Coahoma County, Mississippi. GEICO was at the time this
action was commenced, and still is, a corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the State of Maryland. GEICO
appears herein, by and through its attorney, specifically and
solely for the purpose of removing this consolidated action
from state court to this court.
Id. at 3.
2, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking remand based
on a lack of diversity jurisdiction. Doc. #6. Nine days
later, on May 11, 2017, GEICO responded in opposition to the
plaintiffs' motion. Doc. #10. The plaintiffs did not
14, 2017, this Court, noting that no party had alleged
GEICO's principal place of business, directed GEICO to
show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. Doc. #13. The same day, GEICO,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1653, filed an amendment to its
notice of removal alleging that “GEICO was at the time
this action was commenced, and still is, a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Maryland and its principal place of business is 1 GEICO
Boulevard, Fredericksburg, Virginia.” Doc. #14.