Flores-Duenas v. Briones
| Decision Date | 01 December 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV 13-0660 JB/CG,CIV 13-0660 JB/CG |
| Parties | LEILA FLORES-DUENAS, Plaintiff, v. THOMAS R. BRIONES, BRIONES BUSINESS LAW CONSULTING, P.C., and USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and for Attorney's Fees Award, filed August 9, 2013 (Doc. 10)("Flores-Duenas' Motion"); and (ii) Defendants Tom Briones and Briones Business Law Consulting, P.C.'s Motion for Remand, filed August 15, 2013 (Doc. 12)(" Briones Defendants' Motion"). The Court held a hearing on October 30, 2013. The primary issue is whether the Plaintiff Leila Flores-Duenas procedurally misjoined the nondiverse Defendants Thomas R. Briones ("Briones") and Briones Business Law Consulting, P.C. ("Briones Law")(collectively, "the Briones Defendants") to defeat federal diversity jurisdiction. The Court adopts the procedural misjoinder doctrine, at least as it would apply to cases where the nondiverse defendant is also a citizen of the State in which the plaintiffs first brought the action. The Court also concludes, however, that the claims in this case are not procedurally misjoined. The Court will, therefore, remand this case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Court will, however, deny Flores-Duenas' request for attorney's fees.
The Court takes its facts from the Plaintiff's Complaint for Legal Malpractice, Respondeat Superior, Declaratory Judgment, Breach of Contract, Bad Faith, Violations of New Mexico Insurance Code, and Violations of New Mexico Unfair Practices Act, filed in state court on June 6, 2013, filed in federal court on July 16, 2013 (Doc. 1-1)("Complaint"). This case is a dispute between Plaintiff Leila Flores-Duenas -- a New Mexico resident -- and three Defendants: Briones, a New Mexico resident; Briones Law, a professional corporation incorporated under New Mexico law and with its principal place of business there; and USAA Casualty Insurance Company ("USAA Casualty"), a non-resident of New Mexico, but which is authorized to conduct business there. See Complaint ¶¶ 1-4, at 1-2. The dispute arises from a car accident in Albuquerque, New Mexico in which non-party Liam Hoch rear-ended Flores-Duenas' vehicle; the accident seriously injured Flores-Duenas. See Complaint ¶¶ 8-15, at 2-3. Hoch's mother, Lyn M. Magill-Hoch, owned the car Hoch drove, and USAA insured it. See Complaint ¶ 9, at 2. USAA also insured Flores-Duenas; her insurance included uninsured or underinsured motorist ("UI/UIM") coverage. See Complaint ¶ 23, at 4. Flores-Duenas hired Briones and Briones Law to represent her in a personal injury case against Hoch. See Complaint ¶ 16, at 3.
Before Briones acted on Flores-Duenas' case, the statute of limitations expired. See Complaint ¶¶ 17-18, at 3. A dispute then arose between Flores-Duenas and Briones: "Briones began trying to convince Flores-Duenas, still his client at that point, to settle any claim she had against him and Briones Law." Complaint ¶ 18, at 3. Briones offered to settle any such claims in exchange for legal work he would perform of up to $50,000.00. See Complaint ¶ 20, at 3. "Although he had previously valued Flores-Duenas's lawsuit at well over $600,000.00, Briones told Flores-Duenasthat her 'personal take-home recovery from this lawsuit would have been in the $15,000 - $20,000 range at best.'" Complaint ¶ 21, at 4. Briones admitted his malpractice and tried to convince Flores-Duenas to settle her claims, but he never told her about the conflicts of interest that arose in giving that advice, "and he never advised Flores-Duenas to seek separate legal counsel concerning settling with him and his firm." Complaint ¶ 22, at 4. Flores-Duenas declined Briones' settlement offers. See Complaint at ¶ 23, at 4. Further, she hired separate counsel to represent her in her misrepresentations against Briones. See Complaint ¶ 24, at 4.
Flores-Duenas also began to pursue a UM/UIM claim against USAA Casualty. See Complaint ¶ 24, at 4. Her USAA policy provided $50,000/$100,000 UM/UIM coverage for her vehicles. See Complaint ¶¶ 29-29, at 4. Under the policy, Hoch was an uninsured motorist, "because there is no coverage available under his policy of automobile liability insurance at this time." Complaint ¶ 30, at 5. USAA Casualty twice denied Flores-Duenas' demand for UM/UIM coverage, and twice ignored Flores-Duenas' attorneys' request that USAA give her either a copy of the declarations page from the USAA policy that insured Hoch or a certified certificate of coverage, "so that Flores-Duenas could evaluate the amount of insurance that was available to her under her liability policy." Complaint ¶¶ 33-41, at 5-6. USAA's only explanation for its coverage denial is that "[i]t appears that the [bodily injury] coverage is greater than the UIM coverage; therefore, there would not be a UIM claim." Complaint ¶ 36, at 5.
Flores-Duenas alleges seven causes of action against the Defendants. Against Briones, she alleges legal malpractice, see Complaint ¶¶ 42-48, at 6-7, and that Briones Law is liable for Briones' malpractice under a reapondeat superior theory, see Complaint ¶¶ 49-56, at 7-8. Against USAACasualty, she seeks a declaratory judgment, damages, attorney's fees, and costs on various theories related to the coverage denial: breach of contract, insurance bad faith, violations of the New Mexico Insurance Code, N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 59a-1-1 to -60-7, and violations of the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act, N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 57-12-1 to -12-26. See Complaint ¶¶ 57-87, at 8-12.
USAA Casualty removed the case to federal court, asserting that the Court has diversity jurisdiction. See Notice of Removal at 1, filed July 16, 2013 (Doc. 1). In USAA Casualty's view, Flores-Duenas' "claims against USAA . . . and the Briones Defendants are entirely distinct claims under both Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 and NMRA 1-020, have not been properly brought in the same lawsuit and constitute procedural misjoinder." Notice of Removal ¶ 6, at 3. 4. While USAA Casualty concedes that the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has not adopted the procedural misjoinder doctrine, it argues that the Court should adopt and apply the doctrine in this case, because Flores-Duenas' has brought her legal-malpractice claims against the Briones Defendants together with her coverage claims against USAA Casualty only to defeat federal diversity jurisdiction. See Notice of Removal ¶ 8, at 3-4. In USAA Casualty's view, the Court should sever Flores-Duenas' claims against the Briones Defendants and retain jurisdiction over the case against USAA Casualty. See Notice of Removal ¶ 6, at 3 n.1. The Notice of Removal does not, however, address whether the Briones Defendants consented to removal.
Flores-Duenas' Motion at 3-4. Flores-Duenas stresses that, while the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has adopted procedural misjoinder, the Tenth Circuit has not adopted it. Flores-Duenas' Motion at 5-4. In her view, the doctrine impermissibly expands federal subject-matter jurisdiction, and she cites cases that have rejected the doctrine for that reason. See Flores Duenas' Motion at 6.
Even if the Court adopts the procedural misjoinder doctrine, Flores-Duenas argues, she properly joined her claims against USAA Casualty and the Briones in this suit. See Flores-Duenas' Motion at 6-7. Flores-Duenas cites rule 1-020 of the New Mexico Rules of Civil Procedure, and contends that all of her claims against the Defendants arise from the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences: the car accident. See Flores-Duenas' Motion at 7. Further, she argues that "numerous, significant questions of law and fact [are] common to all of Plaintiff's claims against Defendant USAA and the Briones Defendants" -- for example, whether Hoch is an "uninsured motorist" under Flores-Duenas' USAA policy, and "whether the Briones Defendants would be entitled to offset any UM coverage from Plaintiff's legal malpractice damages." Flores-Duenas' Motion at 8. Flores-Duenas argues that trying those issues separately would be inefficient and risks inconsistent resolutions. See Flores-Duenas' Motion at 8. Further, Flores-Duenas points out that the Briones Defendants raise failure-to-mitigate as an affirmative defense, and argues that "[o]ne formulation of this defense is that Plaintiff failed to seek UM benefits once the statute of limitations was blown and she no longer could recover from Liam Hoch's automobile liability insurance company." Flores-Duenas' Motion at 8. Finally, Flores-Duenas argues that common facts and issues will inform the damages calculation. See Flores-Duenas' Motion at 8-9. In sum, in Flores-Duenas' view, her "joinder of her claims against Defendant USAA and the BrionesDefendants in one action not only satisfies the joinder requirements of Rule 1-020 NMRA, but it also gives effect to these well-established policies of judicial efficiency and fairness." Flores-Duenas' Motion at 9.
Flores-Duenas also argues that USAA Casualty's removal is defective, because USAA Casualty failed to obtain the Briones Defendants' consent before removing. See Flores-Duenas' Motion at...
To continue reading
Request your trial