Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Yarala v. Star Health and Allied Insurance Company Limited

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

August 5, 2014

RANGA YARALA, Plaintiff,
v.
STAR HEALTH AND ALLIED INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED and CORIS USA INC., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

INDIRA TALWANI, District Judge.

I. Background

Plaintiff Ranga Yarala brought this suit against Defendants Star Health and Allied Insurance Company Limited ("Star") and Coris USA, Inc. ("Coris") alleging claims for breach of contract, violation of Massachusetts General Laws chapter 93A, and violation of Massachusetts General Laws chapter 176D. On June 20, 2014, this court held a hearing on Coris's Motion to Remove Entry of Default [#20]. At that hearing, Coris argued for the first time that this court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Because subject matter jurisdiction is a defense that cannot be waived, Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3), this court ordered the parties to file additional briefing on the issue. After considering the parties' arguments, this court held in its July 11, 2014 Memorandum and Order [#31] ("Memorandum and Order") that, with the current configuration of parties, it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this case because the parties were not completely diverse as required by 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332(a). Memorandum and Order at 5-6. In the Memorandum and Order, the court noted that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 authorizes district courts to, "at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party." Id. at 6 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 21). Because a district court may drop a "dispensable nondiverse party at any time, even after judgment has been rendered" in order to cure a jurisdictional defect, Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain , 490 U.S. 826, 832 (1989) (emphasis added), and because there has already been a lengthy delay in this case, this court found it worth considering whether dismissal of this action may be avoided by dropping Star as a party, which would cure the jurisdictional defect in this case. Because none of the parties had addressed Rules 19 or 21 in their briefing on subject matter jurisdiction, this court ordered that they file additional briefing on the question whether Star is an indispensable party under Rule 19 and whether this court should exercise its authority under Rule 21. In its briefing, Coris argued that Star was an indispensable party because of its central importance to this action and that Yarala would not be prejudiced if this action were dismissed because he could pursue the instant claims in state court. In response, Yarala emphasized that Coris would not be prejudiced if the court cured the present lack of subject matter jurisdiction by exercising its Rule 21 authority and dropping Star from this case.

After considering the parties' arguments and for the reasons set forth below, Star is hereby DISMISSED as a party to this case under Rule 21 and the pending motion to remove entry of default [#20] is hereby ALLOWED.

II. Facts

In the Memorandum and Order, this court recited the relevant factual background:

The relevant facts, as alleged in the complaint, are briefly recounted. Yarala is a resident of India. Star is an Indian corporation with its usual place of business in that country. Coris is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in that state.
Yarala contends that in August 2010, he entered into a contract for travel insurance with Star. The insurance was to cover Yarala's 180-day trip to the United States and specifically to Boston, Massachusetts. On October 16, 2010, Yarala was walking on a sidewalk in Framingham, Massachusetts when he was struck by a car driven by an individual who is not a party to this suit. Yarala suffered serious injuries as a result. The day of the accident, Yarala's son Rahul followed the procedures set forth in the insurance agreement to establish a claim for travel insurance.
Yarala asserts further that Rahul attempted to contact Star through its agent Coris by e-mail and telephone numerous times but never received a response as to whether Star would pay out any of Yarala's benefits. Star did not provide a denial letter and ceased returning Rahul and Coris's calls. On November 19, 2010, a Coris Miami employee sent an urgent e-mail to Coris India seeking acceptance or denial of Yarala's claim. Several weeks later, Coris informed Rahul that Coris had closed the case and that he should contact Star directly.
According to Yarala, Star subsequently informed Rahul that the claim had been referred for a final decision. Yarala did not receive benefits at that time. Medical bills totaling $191, 000 have been submitted to Star and Coris in compliance with Yarala's insurance policy. On April 28, 2011, Yarala sent Star and Coris written demands pursuant to Chapter 93A. Star made a late payment of $71, 233.36 around April of 2012. The defendants have not responded to Yarala's demand letters.

Memorandum and Order at 1-2. Additional facts relevant to the present analysis will be included in the discussion below.

III. Discussion

A. Dismissal of Non-Diverse Party

"A district court's authority to dismiss a non-diverse party derives from Rule 21; however, the factors which must be considered in determining whether a non-diverse party is indispensable are set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 19(b)."[1] H.D. Corp. v. Ford ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.