DEBORAH MANIGAULT v. BASF CORPORATION ET AL (2023)

ORDER

Before the Court is Travelers Property Casualty Company of America's (“Travelers”) Motion for Leave to File Petition of Intervention. (R. Doc. 25).

Deborah Manigualt (“Plaintiff”) alleges that while she was employed by Lacosta Facility Support Services at a plant owned and operated by BASF Corporation, she incurred personal injuries when she walked into a trailer and the floor of the trailer collapsed beneath her feet. (R. Doc. 1-3 at 2). Plaintiff named as defendants BASF Corporation and Mobile Mini, Inc., the alleged manufacturer of the trailer. (R. Doc. 1-3 at 1-2). Plaintiff then filed an amended pleading, which named Williams Scotsman, Inc., as a second alleged manufacturer of the trailer. (R. Doc. 1-4).

On April 4, 2023, Williams Scotsman, Inc. removed the action asserting that the Court can exercise diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (R. Doc. 1).

Travelers now seeks to intervene in the action “to recover medical and/or compensation benefits paid to or on behalf of Lacosta, Inc., and/or its employee, Deborah Manigault.” (R. Doc. 25 at 1). Travelers seeks to name Deborah Manigault and Williams Scotsman, Inc. as defendants-in-intervention. (R. Doc 25-1 at 1). Travelers represents that it “has paid and continues to pay workers' compensation benefits to or on behalf of Deborah Manigault, in connection with [the] accident at issue.” (R. Doc. 25-1 at 2). The proposed pleading does not identify Travelers's citizenship or the amount in controversy with respect to Travelers's claims in intervention.

Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs intervention in this action. While Travelers does not identify whether it is seeking intervention of right under Rule 24(a) or permissive intervention under Rule 24(b), “district courts in this circuit have found that employers and workers' compensation insurers who have paid a plaintiff workers' compensation benefits are intervenors of right in a plaintiff's action against alleged tortfeasors.” Grizer v. CF Indus., Inc., No. 16-145, 2017 WL 2608860, at *4 (M.D. La. May 26, 2017), report and recommendation adopted, 2017 WL 2604257 (M.D. La. June 15, 2017) (citing cases); see La. R.S. 23:1102(A)(1).

Furthermore, given that Travelers is seeking to recover workers' compensation payments paid to Plaintiff, it is proper to align Travelers in this action with Plaintiff. Grizer, 2017 WL 2608860, at *5 (aligning workers' compensation insurer seeking recovery of paid benefits with the plaintiff); see Dushane v. Gallagher Kaiser Corp., No. 05-0171, 2005 WL 1959151, at *6 (W.D. La. Aug. 10, 2005) (“After careful consideration, the court finds GM is more properly considered an intervenor-plaintiff. If allowed to intervene, GM [which alleged itself to be self-insured for workers' compensation liabilities] no doubt will align itself with Plaintiffs, as it is in GM's interest for Plaintiffs to maximize their recovery against Defendants and thereby increase the potential for GM to recover all of the worker's compensation benefits it already has paid Plaintiffs. The less Plaintiffs recover, the less reimbursement GM will receive. If Plaintiffs had not filed a suit at all, and GM filed its own suit against Defendants to seek reimbursement, GM would be considered a plaintiff in every sense of the word. The difference here is that the injured employee filed his own suit, thus relegating GM to the status of putative intervenor.”).

“In any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded solely on section 1332 ․ the district courts shall not have supplemental jurisdiction ․ over claims by persons ․ seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24 ․ when exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b); see Griffin v. Lee, 621 F.3d 380, 386 (5th Cir. 2010) (instructing district court to dismiss a petition of intervention filed by a non-diverse party aligned as a plaintiff and explaining that “while Congress codified the concepts of pendent and ancillary jurisdiction in § 1367(a), it apparently chose to circumscribe such jurisdiction in § 1367(b) with respect to plaintiff intervenors.”). Accordingly, the Court must determine whether Travelers's claims in intervention independently support diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Travelers's motion is deficient to the extent it does not address whether the Court will be deprived of subject matter jurisdiction if Travelers is allowed to intervene as a plaintiff in this action. Accordingly, the Court will deny Travelers's motion and require Travelers, to the extent it again seeks to intervene in this action, to address whether its claims as a plaintiff-intervenor independently satisfy the requirements for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Any renewed motion to intervene must provide a proposed pleading identifying Travelers's citizenship. The citizenship of a corporation is determined by its state of incorporation and principal place of business. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1); Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Co. v. Pargas, Inc., 706 F.2d 633, 637 (5th Cir. 1983). A corporation's principal place of business is its “nerve center,” meaning “the place where a corporation's officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation's activities.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 92 (2010).

Furthermore, any renewed motion to intervene must address whether the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied. See Griffin, 621 F.3d at 386 (finding that the amount in controversy requirement was not facially apparent where the individual seeking intervention as a plaintiff was seeking less than $75,000.00 in recovery of attorney's fees).

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that Travelers Property Casualty Company of America's Motion for Leave to File Petition of Intervention (R. Doc. 25) is DENIED. Any renewed motion seeking intervention must address the issues raised in this Order.

Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on October 23, 2023.

RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE