MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The plaintiff, Canal@Camp Apartments, LLC, initially brought this action against the defendants, Mt. Hawley Insurance Company (“Mt. Hawley”) and Aparicio, Walker, and Seeling, Inc. (“AWS”) in state court in Louisiana. The plaintiff alleged that its property suffered damage from a hurricane and that Mt. Hawley failed to pay what was owed under a policy issued by Mt. Hawley. The plaintiff also claimed that the insurance agent AWS was liable for its failure to advise the plaintiff about changes in the renewal insurance policy obtained by AWS, and specifically about the addition of a venue selection clause that provided for venue in New York. On September 27, 2023, Mt. Hawley removed this action to federal court in Louisiana on the basis of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. Not. of Removal, ECF No. 1. On March 27, 2024, the federal court in Louisiana granted Mt. Hawley’s motion to transfer venue, ECF No. 25, and the action was transferred to this Court, ECF No. 26. The plaintiff moves to remand this case to state court, arguing that there is incomplete diversity of citizenship. For the foregoing reasons, the motion to remand is granted. I. Procedural Background The plaintiff commenced this action in state court in Louisiana on August 25, 2023, asserting various state-law claims against the defendants in connection with property damage sustained from Hurricane Ida by the plaintiff’s property, which was allegedly covered by an insurance policy issued by Mt. Hawley. See Not. of Removal, Ex. A, ECF No. 1-2 (“Pet.”). Mt. Hawley removed this action to federal court in Louisiana pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1441(b)(2), arguing that AWS — like the plaintiff, a domiciliary of Louisiana — was an improperly joined defendant. See Not. of Removal 10. On October 26, 2023, the plaintiff filed this motion to remand the action to state court. Pl.’s Mot. to Remand, ECF No. 9. On November 27, 2023, the same day that the plaintiff filed its reply in support of its motion to remand, Mt. Hawley filed a motion to transfer venue. ECF No. 15. The federal court in Louisiana, finding that the “[m]otion to [r]emand speaks to the merits of [the plaintiff's] claim against AWS and should be decided by the court that may ultimately try the case[,]” granted the motion to transfer venue because the policy at issue contains a New York forum selection clause. ECF No. 25. The plaintiff now moves to remand this action to the New York state court because the plaintiff alleges that AWS is a proper defendant and therefore complete diversity of citizenship is lacking. See Pl.’s Mot. to Remand at 1-2. II. Legal Standard Removal from state court is governed by 28 U.S.C. §1441, which provides that the only “civil action[s]” subject to removal are those over “ which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction[.]” 28 U.S.C. §1441(a). “ [A] district court, when determining whether it has original jurisdiction over a civil action, should evaluate whether that action could have been brought originally in federal court…either because it raises claims arising under federal law or because it falls within the court’s diversity jurisdiction.” Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, 139 S. Ct. 1743, 1748 (2019). Diversity jurisdiction, which is the type of subject-matter jurisdiction at issue in this case, requires complete diversity between all named plaintiffs and all named defendants. See Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 84 (2005). For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, “a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of every State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its principal place of business.” 28 U.S.C. §1332(c)(1); see also Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 80 (2010). On a motion to remand, “the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating the propriety of removal.” Cal. Pub. Emps.’ Ret. Sys. v. Worldcom, Inc., 368 F.3d 86, 100 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting Grimo v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Vt., 34 F.3d 148, 151 (2d Cir. 1994)). III. Discussion Mt. Hawley argues that there are two reasons why the plaintiff has no claim against AWS, that AWS is improperly joined, and that removal is proper because there is complete diversity between the plaintiff and Mt. Hawley. A. Insurance Agent’s Duty Mt. Hawley contends initially that the plaintiff has no claim against AWS, the plaintiff’s insurance agent, because under Louisiana law an insurance agent has no obligation to tell a client about the addition of a venue selection clause in a renewal of a policy. See Def.’s Opp’n at 3-6, ECF No. 10. However, the plaintiff correctly argues that a federal court in Louisiana recognized a reasonable basis, under Louisiana law, for a claim much like the one in this case. See Pl.’s Mot. to Remand at 6. In Scheuermann v. Hanover Insurance Company, a court in the Eastern District of Louisiana granted a motion to remand by the plaintiff because it “f[ound] that [the defendant seeking removal] ha[d] not established that there [wa]s no reasonable basis for Plaintiff’s claims against [the insurance agent].” No. 06-cv-8620, 2007 WL 458221, at *4-5 (E.D. La. Feb. 8, 2007). The Scheuermann plaintiff alleged that he “relied on…his insurance agent to advise him of changes in his policies” and that “his agent/broker…failed to do so.” Id. at *4. In this case, the plaintiff also alleges that it relied on AWS to advise on changes in a policy renewal and that AWS failed to do so. See Pet. 29 (“[A]WS Insurance should have notified [the plaintiff] that the Endorsement would attempt to limit the venue for all claims between [the plaintiff] and Mt. Hawley in the State of New York[.]“); see also id. 28 (The plaintiff “relied upon [A]WS Insurance to procure insurance coverage that would not contain any type of endorsement or condition mandating that [the plaintiff] bring its claims against Mt. Hawley anywhere other than Louisiana.”). Mt. Hawley counters that the plaintiff relies on Scheuermann “to argue that AWS had a heightened duty that was breached” and that the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has since rejected the premise that an agent owes its customer a “heightened duty.” Def.’s Opp’n at 7-8; see also id. at 4-5 (citing Coleman E. Adler & Sons, L.L.C. v. Axis Surplus Ins. Co., 49 F.4th 894, 899 (5th Cir. 2022)). But the plaintiff in this case does not argue that AWS had a heightened duty as defined in Coleman — that is, the “obligation to spontaneously or affirmatively identify the scope or the amount of insurance coverage the client needs” when the client fails to make any specific request. 49 F.4th at 899 (quoting Isidore Newman Sch. v. J. Everett Eaves, Inc., 42 So.3d 352, 359 (La. 2010)). Moreover, the plaintiff in this case alleges that it “specifically inquired” about the forum selection clause. See id.; see also Pet.
