Cifuentes et al v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JOSE A. CIFUENTES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND PROPERTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-25-716-D
(Case Remanded to
Oklahoma County District
Court, CJ-25-3151)
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand [Doc. No. 12]. Defendant Allstate
Vehicle and Property Insurance Company (“Allstate”) filed a response [Doc. No. 13], to
which Plaintiffs filed a reply [Doc. No. 14]. The matter is fully briefed and at issue.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs owned property located in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, which was at all
relevant times insured under an Allstate policy. [Doc. No. 1-1, at p. 1, 3, ¶ 2, 7]. Plaintiffs
purchased the insurance policy in 2018 [Doc. No. 13-1], which continued to be renewed
through Defendant Alex Martinez (“Martinez”). [Doc. No. 1-1, at p. 1, ¶ 2]. The property
was damaged by a storm on or about May 19, 2024. Id. at p. 5, ¶ 12(a). Plaintiffs reported
a loss to Allstate, and an inspection was performed on or about August 5, 2024. Id. at p. 5-
6, ¶ 12(b).
Plaintiffs allege that Allstate wrongfully denied their insurance claim for the
damage. [Doc. No. 1-1]. In addition to their claims against Allstate, they also assert claims
Case 5:25-cv-00716-D Document 15 Filed 01/05/26 Page 1 of 9

2
against 	Martinez 	for 	fraudulent 	concealment, 	negligent 	procurement 	of 	insurance,
constructive fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. Id.
In support of their negligent procurement claim, they allege that in procuring the
policy, Martinez “independently selected and calculated coverage” and “conveyed that
such coverage limit was accurate . . . and represented 100% of the Insured Property’s
insurance to value.” Id. at p. 19, ¶ 50(d). They further assert that prior to the issuance of
the policy, Martinez did not verify the condition of the property; did not disclose to them
that the property was ineligible for the requested replacement cost coverage for any reason;
did not advise them that the property had any defect or pre-existing damage— like “age”
that would exclude it from replacement cost coverage; did not inform them of any condition
that would exclude the property’s roof from full replacement cost coverage; and did not
disclose to them that the replacement cost value calculated for the property did not in fact
represent 100% insurance to value. Id. at p. 19, 20, ¶ 51(b)-(e), (h).
Allstate timely removed the case to this Court. [Doc. No. 1]. In its notice of removal,
Allstate alleges that complete diversity exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and the amount in
controversy exceeds the threshold for diversity jurisdiction. Id. Although Martinez is a non-
diverse party, Allstate contends that Martinez was fraudulently joined by Plaintiffs to defeat
diversity jurisdiction. Id. at p. 2, ¶ 4.
Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion, arguing that Allstate cannot meet its “heavy
burden” to show fraudulent joinder. [Doc. No. 12].
Case 5:25-cv-00716-D Document 15 Filed 01/05/26 Page 2 of 9

3
STANDARD OF DECISION
Subject-matter jurisdiction over this case turns on the issue of fraudulent joinder.
“To establish fraudulent joinder, the removing party must demonstrate either: 1) actual
fraud in the pleading of jurisdictional facts, or 2) inability of the plaintiff to establish a
cause of action against the non-diverse party in state court.” Dutcher v. Matheson, 733 F.3d
980, 988 (10th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation omitted). As the removing party, Allstate must
establish that federal jurisdiction exists. McPhail v. Deere & Co., 529 F.3d 947, 955 (10th
Cir. 2008).
“Removal statutes are to be strictly construed, and all doubts are to be resolved
against removal.” Fajen v. Found. Rsrv. Ins. Co., 683 F.2d 331, 333 (10th Cir. 1982)
(internal citation omitted). To satisfy the “heavy burden,” the party asserting fraudulent
joinder must show under the “actual fraud” prong that the plaintiff essentially “lied in the
pleadings.” Sanelli v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc., No. CIV-23-263-SLP, 2023 WL 3775177, at
*2 (W.D. Okla. June 2, 2023) (internal quotation omitted). Under the “inability to establish
a cause of action” prong, the party asserting fraudulent joinder must show that there is no
possibility that the plaintiff would be able to establish a cause of action against the
purportedly fraudulently joined party in state court. See Montano v. Allstate Indem., No.
99-2225, 2000 WL 525592, at *1 (10th Cir. Apr. 14, 2000) (unpublished)1 (internal
quotations and citation omitted); Brazell v. Waite, 525 F. App'x 878, 881 (10th Cir. 2013)
1 Unpublished opinions are cited pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a) and 10th Cir. R.
32.1(A).
Case 5:25-cv-00716-D Document 15 Filed 01/05/26 Page 3 of 9

4
(unpublished) (citation omitted) (“[T]he removing party must show that the plaintiff has
‘no cause of action’ against the fraudulently joined defendant.”).
“[U]pon specific allegations of fraudulent joinder the court may pierce the
pleadings, ... consider the entire record, and determine the basis of joinder by any means
available.” Dodd v. Fawcett Publ’ns, Inc., 329 F.2d 82, 85 (10th Cir. 1964) (citations
omitted); see also Smoot v. Chicago, R.I. & P. R. Co., 378 F.2d 879, 881-82 (10th Cir.
1967). The Court may not, however, “pre-try . . . doubtful issues of fact to determine
removability; the issue must be capable of summary determination and be proven with
complete certainty.” Smoot, 378 F.2d at 882. “This standard is more exacting than that for
dismissing a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).” Montano, 2000 WL 525592, at *2.
“[A]ll factual and legal issues must be resolved in favor of the plaintiff.” Dutcher, 733 F.3d
at 988.
DISCUSSION
I. 	Inability to State a Cause of Action
Under Oklahoma law, “[a]n agent has the duty to act in good faith and use
reasonable care, skill and diligence in the procurement of insurance and an agent is liable
to the insured if, by the agent’s fault, insurance is not procured as promised and the insured
suffers a loss.” Kutz v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2008 OK CIV APP 60, ¶ 16, 189 P.3d
740, 744-45 (citation and emphasis omitted). To that end, agents must “offer coverage
mandated by law and coverage for needs that are disclosed by the insureds....” Rotan v.
Farmers Ins. Grp. of Companies, Inc., 2004 OK CIV APP 11, ¶ 3, 83 P.3d 894, 895
(emphasis omitted).
Case 5:25-cv-00716-D Document 15 Filed 01/05/26 Page 4 of 9

5
Upon careful consideration of the record, the Court finds that Allstate has not met
its heavy burden to show – with complete certainty – that Plaintiffs cannot state a negligent
procurement claim against Martinez in state court.2 See Oliver v. State Farm Fire & Cas.
Co., 765 F. Supp. 3d 1244, 1250 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 11, 2025) (remanding case involving
negligent procurement claim where the plaintiff alleged in part that “State Farm’s denial
was contrary to the [agents’] representations that all underwriting requirements had been
met and that there were no preexisting issues with the roof that would limit or restrict
coverage”); see also Kyger v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 649 F. Supp. 3d 1200, 1202,
1206 (W.D. Okla. 2022) (remanding negligent procurement claim where the plaintiff
alleged that “she requested from [her agent] ‘full replacement cost coverage for her roof’
which was not procured as promised, ... that [the agent] represented that ‘there was nothing
about the condition of the roof that would preclude full replacement[,]’” and that the agent’s
representation was “inconsistent with State Farm’s denial of her claim because the hail
damage ‘[did] not penetrate the shingle mat.’”).
Allstate cites to this Court’s decision, Rain Drop Found., Inc. v. State Farm Fire &
Cas. Co., No. CIV-24-1101-D, 2025 WL 582562 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 21, 2025). However,
Rain Drop is distinguishable from this case. In Rain Drop, the Court found that the agent
could not be liable for negligent procurement of the insurance policy. Id. at *4. In support
2 Given this determination, the Court need not address Plaintiffs’ fraud and constructive
fraud claims against Martinez. See Nerad v. AstraZeneca Pharms., Inc., 203 F. App'x 911,
913 (10th Cir. 2006) (unpublished) (explaining that a fraudulent joinder analysis turns on
“whether there is a reasonable basis to believe the plaintiff might succeed in at least one
claim against the non-diverse defendant.”).
Case 5:25-cv-00716-D Document 15 Filed 01/05/26 Page 5 of 9

6
of its finding, the Court distinguished Rain Drop from other cases in which it was alleged
that 1) the insurer denied the claim in part due to preexisting damage; and 2) the “insurance
agent had allegedly underwritten the policy and may have, through negligence or
constructive fraud, failed to communicate the consequences of the preexisting damage.”
Id. Here, Plaintiffs alleged both.
Indeed, the Court finds this matter is more similar to Pruitt v. State Farm Fire &
Cas. Co., No. CIV-25-43-D, 2025 WL 1030353 (W.D. Okla. Apr. 7, 2025), in which the
Court granted the plaintiff’s motion to remand. In Pruitt, the Court based its determination
largely on the plaintiff’s assertion that the defendant insurer’s denial was in reliance on
pre-existing damage, the defendant agent’s negligent performance of his procurement
duties, and the defendant’s failure to show with certainty otherwise. Id. at *4. Thus,
construing the issues of fact in the plaintiff’s favor without pre-trying them, the Court found
that the defendant insurer did not carry its heavy burden to show with complete certainty
that the plaintiff could not state a negligent procurement claim against the defendant
insurance agent. Id.
Here, Plaintiffs contend that preexisting damage was the basis for Allstate’s policy
denial. Further, they allege that Martinez was negligent in performing his procurement
duties. Thus, the Court finds that this case is less analogous to Rain Drop, and more
analogous to Pruitt, Kyger, and Oliver, cited above. Upon careful consideration of
Plaintiffs’ allegations, and construing factual issues in their favor, the Court finds Allstate
has failed to show with complete certainty that Plaintiffs cannot establish a negligent
Case 5:25-cv-00716-D Document 15 Filed 01/05/26 Page 6 of 9

7
procurement claim against Martinez in state court. Accordingly, Allstate has not met its
“heavy burden” to establish fraudulent joinder.
II. Actual Fraud in the Pleading of Jurisdictional Facts
As stated above, showing actual fraud in the pleading of jurisdictional facts
“basically requires a showing that plaintiff lied in the pleadings.” Sanelli, 2023 WL
3775177, at *2. In its notice of removal, Allstate contends that Plaintiffs have engaged in
fraud in the pleading of jurisdictional facts. In support, Allstate primarily argues that
Plaintiffs’ counsel has brought an increasing number of cases against Allstate and other
insurers based on identical underwriting failures, and that this is indicative of fraud.
As Allstate is likely aware, several judges in this district have found that allegations
of cookie-cutter complaints are, alone, insufficient to establish fraudulent joinder. See
Norman v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 764 F. Supp. 3d 1100, 1104-05 (W.D. Okla. 2025)
(“[T]he Court is not persuaded that the similarity in the allegations or the number of cases
filed by Plaintiffs’ counsel is necessarily suggestive of fraud in this action. Moreover, as
Plaintiffs note, the Petition alleges that the agents are an essential component of State
Farm’s scheme to wrongfully deny claims, and some similarity in statements or conduct is
therefore conceivable.”); Stacy v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. CIV-22-883-PRW, 2023
WL 11915451, at * 2 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 29, 2023) (granting remand in the face of an
“apparent pattern of ‘cookie cutter’ petitions”); Pruitt, 2025 WL 1030353, at *4 (“The
Court is not persuaded that the sheer quantity of similar claims alleged against insurance
agents is enough to satisfy the high burden necessary to prove fraudulent joinder.”)
(quotation and citation omitted); Martin v. Allstate Vehicle & Prop., Ins. Co., No. CIV-23-
Case 5:25-cv-00716-D Document 15 Filed 01/05/26 Page 7 of 9

8
739-SLP, 2024 WL 3510301, at *2 (W.D. Okla. July 23, 2024) (“[T]his Court, and multiple
other federal district courts within the state of Oklahoma have rejected claims of fraudulent
joinder on substantially similar allegations made in support of virtually identical claims for
relief.”).
Upon consideration, the Court finds that Allstate has not met its high burden to show
actual fraud in the pleading of jurisdictional facts based on the growing number of similar
allegations against Allstate and other insurers. The Court further finds that Allstate’s
remaining examples of actual fraud – to include its argument that Plaintiffs have failed to
allege how the agent is involved in the alleged insurance scheme – instead speak to the
merits of their underlying claims, not whether they committed actual fraud in the pleadings.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Allstate has insufficiently demonstrated actual fraud in
the pleading of jurisdictional facts for purposes of fraudulent joinder.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, the Court finds that Defendant Allstate Vehicle and
Property Insurance Company has not established fraudulent joinder, and the Court lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand [Doc. No. 12]
is GRANTED, and the case is REMANDED to the District Court of Oklahoma County,
Oklahoma. The Clerk of Court shall mail a certified copy of this Order to the clerk of the
District Court of Oklahoma County. Each side shall bear their own attorneys’ fees, costs,
and expenses incurred as a result of the removal and remand.
Case 5:25-cv-00716-D Document 15 Filed 01/05/26 Page 8 of 9

9
IT IS SO ORDERED this 5 th day of January, 2026.
TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI
Chief United States District Judge
Case 5:25-cv-00716-D Document 15 Filed 01/05/26 Page 9 of 9