Reported / Citable
Background
Jay Dobson, proceeding pro se, sued Bridgestone Americas, Inc. and Amy Hardy in Texas state court over alleged bad-faith settlement practices. His petition alleged that Hardy was an insurance adjuster and Bridgestone agent who stopped communicating as limitations approached, directed that information be withheld from a medical insurer, and offered less than the claimed medical debt. Dobson asserted claims under the Texas Insurance Code and Deceptive Trade Practices Act and later itemized more than $500,000 in damages.
Bridgestone removed the action based on diversity jurisdiction. It alleged that Dobson was a Texas resident, Bridgestone was incorporated in Nevada with its principal place of business in Tennessee, and Hardy resided in Tennessee. Hardy was never served, and Dobson later dismissed his claims against her without prejudice. Dobson filed several motions seeking remand, sanctions, and costs.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Brian McKay recommended that the district judge deny all of Dobson’s remand motions. The magistrate judge concluded that removal was timely, the parties were completely diverse, and the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 because Dobson’s state-court damages demand surpassed $500,000.
The magistrate judge rejected Dobson’s contention that Bridgestone was an unauthorized insurer required to post a bond under Texas Insurance Code § 101.353. Negotiating and paying a claim made against the company did not show that Bridgestone was engaged in the business of insurance. The magistrate judge also found no jurisdictional defect arising from alleged filing irregularities, constitutional violations, counsel’s asserted disqualification, the McCarran-Ferguson Act, or Dobson’s cited Supreme Court decision.
Because the magistrate judge found removal proper and the remand arguments meritless, he also recommended denying Dobson’s associated request for fees and sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The filing was a report and recommendation, not a final district-court ruling, and the parties were given 14 days to file specific objections.
Key Takeaways
- A state-court filing demanding more than $500,000 established an amount in controversy above the $75,000 diversity threshold.
- Paying or negotiating a claim against a company does not, without more, make that company an insurer subject to Texas requirements governing unauthorized insurers.
- Alleged filing irregularities, counsel disqualification, and generalized constitutional objections did not undermine federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
Why It Matters
The recommendation illustrates that remand turns on jurisdictional facts at the time of removal, including citizenship and the amount placed in controversy, rather than collateral disputes over litigation conduct. It also distinguishes a company’s settlement of a claim against it from conducting the business of insurance under Texas law.
The district judge must still decide whether to adopt the magistrate judge’s recommendation, and any party seeking review must file timely, specific objections.