Cisneros v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
BEATRIZ and RODRIGO CISNEROS, 	)
)
Plaintiffs, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-25-42-R
)
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY 	)
COMPANY, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion to Remand [Doc. No. 55], which is
fully briefed [Doc. Nos. 71, 73] and at issue.
Plaintiffs argue that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Hain Celestial Grp.,
Inc. v. Palmquist, 607 U.S. ___, 146 S. Ct. 724 (2026), warrants remanding this action to
state court. In Hain Celestial, 146 S. Ct. at 728, the Supreme Court considered “whether a
district court’s erroneous dismissal of a nondiverse party before final judgment can cure a
jurisdictional defect that existed when the case was removed to federal court.” The
Supreme Court answered the question in the negative, concluding the district’s court’s final
judgment must be vacated. Id. Notably, Hain Celestial did not evaluate whether the district
court’s improper joinder decision was or was not correct. Id. at 730.
Hain Celestial did not address the fraudulent joinder standard and does not provide
a basis for reconsidering the Court’s prior order denying remand. See Skidmore v. Schinke,
No. 25-1436, 2026 WL 860093, at *3 (4th Cir. Mar. 30, 2026) (noting that the Fourth
Case 5:25-cv-00042-R Document 75 Filed 04/21/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Circuit’s fraudulent joinder standard remains good law even after Hain Celestial).1 As to
Plaintiffs belief that Hain Celestial counsels in favor of remand because it recognizes the
risk of a post-merits reversal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, that
possible problem would appear to exist in every federal case, particularly
where jurisdiction is questioned. But district courts often have to make
difficult decisions. The district courts are not free to limit federal jurisdiction
to avoid error.
Tresco, Inc. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 727 F. Supp. 2d 1243, 1252 n.5 (D.N.M. 2010). In any
event, the Tenth Circuit already takes a strict approach to fraudulent joinder which accords
with the presumption against removal jurisdiction, see, e.g., Dutcher v. Matheson, 733 F.3d
980, 988 (10th Cir. 2013), and which this Court applied in denying remand.
Plaintiffs make two additional arguments in re-urging their request for remand,
neither of which is persuasive. First, they point to other cases involving similar claims
where the district court granted remand and/or the state court denied a motion to dismiss.
But the issue here is whether the nondiverse defendant in this case is fraudulently joined,
not whether there is a possibly viable claim against a different defendant in a different case.
Further, although the allegations in many of these cases are similar, they are not always
identical. See Wilder v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. CIV-25-00092-JD, 2025 WL
2918045, at *6 (W.D. Okla. Oct. 14, 2025) (denying remand and recognizing “a notable
difference” between the allegations in different cases). Here, for the reasons explained in
1 See also Waller v. State Farm, No. 25-CV-00448-SH, 2026 WL 880234, at *6 (N.D. Okla. Mar. 30, 2026)
(denying remand post-Hain Celestial in a case with materially similar allegations); Robbins v. State Farm,
No. CIV-25-324-G, 2026 WL 878449, at *6 (W.D. Okla. Mar. 30, 2026) (same); Schettler v. State Farm
Fire & Cas. Co., CIV-25-845-JD (W.D. Okla. Apr. 6, 2026).
Case 5:25-cv-00042-R Document 75 Filed 04/21/26 Page 2 of 3

3
the Court’s prior orders, see Doc. Nos. 24, 30, Plaintiffs’ own allegations and the other
material in the record established that the nondiverse defendant was fraudulently joined.
Second, Plaintiffs argue that remand is warranted because they lacked “crucial
evidence” during the initial briefing cycle on their motion to remand that undermines the
Court’s prior finding of fraudulent joinder. The “crucial evidence” is State Farm’s denial
letter stating that roof had “minor wind damage” and its condition was consistent with the
roof’s “age, granular loss and deterioration.” Putting aside the fact that the denial letter was
available during the initial briefing cycle, the issues raised by the letter have already been
considered and rejected by the Court. The disagreement between State Farm and Plaintiffs
about the cause or extent of the roof damage does not, based on the allegations in this case,
provide a basis for asserting a claim against the nondiverse agent. See Wilder, 2025 WL
2918045, at *6 (“Plaintiff's damages stem from State Farm’s calculation of the repairs to
her property, not from Plaintiff’s lack of coverage related to the above alleged
misrepresentations.”).
Plaintiffs have not shown that reconsideration of these issues is appropriate or that
the action should be remanded for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs’ Renewed
Motion to Remand [Doc. No. 55] is therefore DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of April, 2026.
Case 5:25-cv-00042-R Document 75 Filed 04/21/26 Page 3 of 3