Searle v. Auto Club Family Insurance Company

Full title: SUSAN SEARLE v. AUTO CLUB FAMILY INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

Date published: Dec 13, 2006

CIVIL ACTION No. 06-8485, SECTION: I/1 (E.D. La. Dec. 13, 2006)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION No. 06-8485, SECTION: I/1.

December 13, 2006

ORDER AND REASONS

LANCE AFRICK, Magistrate Judge

The matter before the Court is a motion to remand, filed on behalf of plaintiff, Susan Searle. Defendants in this matter are Auto Club Family Insurance Agency, Eagan Insurance Company, Denise Thomas, Oak Maintenance, and Tommy Cruggi. For the following reasons, the motion to remand is GRANTED.

This Court has issued extensive opinions on the full range of legal issues regarding motions to remand in Hurricane Katrina insurance litigation. See, e.g., Bourgeois v. State Farm Fire Cas. Co., No. 06-8037, 2006 WL 3344736 (E.D. La. Nov. 16, 2006); Rizzuto v. Tully, No. 06-6883, 2006 WL 3332832 (E.D. La. Nov. 14, 2006); Jackson v. State Fire Cas. Ins. Co., No. 06-4467, 2006 WL 3332835 (E.D. La. Nov. 9, 2006); Yount v. Lafayette Ins. Co., No. 06-7382, 2006 WL 3240790 (E.D. La. Nov. 7, 2006); Trosclair v. Security Plan Life Ins. Co., No. 06-9220, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84100 (E.D. La. Nov. 6, 2006); Richmond v. Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., No. 06-3973, 2006 WL 2710566 (E.D. La. Sept. 20, 2006); Best v. Independent Ins. Assocs. Inc., No. 06-1130, 2006 WL 2710445 (E.D. La. Sept. 19, 2006); Nash v. Harry Kelleher Co., No. 06-1083, 2006 WL 2644960 (E.D. La. Sept. 14, 2006); Smith Lupo Williams Partners v. Carter, No. 06-2808, 2006 WL 2548255 (E.D. La. Aug. 31, 2006).

After fully considering the law, the facts, and the arguments of all parties, the Court finds that the above cited decisions, when applied to the facts of this case, dictate a remand. The Court is inundated with motions to remand in cases such as this one, and it is neither in the interest of justice nor judicial economy to issue an extensive, yet repetitive, opinion. The Court, therefore, incorporates the applicable legal standards and analysis from its prior opinions as though fully written herein.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion to remand filed on behalf of plaintiff¹ is GRANTED and the case is REMANDED to the 22nd Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Tammany.

1 Rec. Doc. No. 5.