govinfo:USCOURTS-okwd-5_25-cv-00562-2

1 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 
JANEVA 
K. NEWELL, ) 
) 
Plaintiff, ) 
) 
vs. ) Case No. CIV-25-562-R 
) 
STATE FARM FIRE AND ) 
CASUALTY COMPANY, ) 
) 
Defendant. ) 
ORDER 
Before the
 Court is Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion to Remand and Notice of 
Supplemental Authority Supporting Same [Doc. No. 34], which is fully briefed [Doc. Nos. 
41 and 44] and at issue. 
Plaintiff initiated this action in state court asserting claims for breach of contract, 
bad faith and constructive fraud/negligent misrepresentation against State Farm and claims 
for negligent procurement of insurance and constructive fraud/negligent misrepresentation 
against the insurance agent/agency. State Farm removed the case, contending the 
agent/agency were fraudulently joined and their non-diverse citizenship may therefore be 
disregarded for purposes of establishing diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff moved for remand, 
arguing that State Farm could not meet its heavy burden of establishing fraudulent joinder. 
The Court concluded that the non-diverse defendants were fraudulently joined, dismissed 
them from the action, and denied remand. 
Plaintiff has now renewed its motion for remand, contending that the Court engaged 
in an impermissible merits-based analysis. Plaintiffs primarily rely on Hain Celestial Grp., 

2 
 
Inc. v. Palmquist, 607 U.S. ___, 146 S. Ct. 724 (2026), which 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. 
“The court is unpersuaded that Hain warrants reconsideration.” White v State Farm, 
CIV-25-0561-HE (W.D. Okla. June 4, 2026). To the extent Hain recognizes the risk of a 
post-merits reversal, “that risk exists in any case where a district court concludes it has 
subject matter jurisdiction and a reviewing court concludes otherwise.” Id.; see also Tresco, 
Inc. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 727 F. Supp. 2d 1243, 1252 n.5 (D.N.M. 2010) (recognizing that 
the risk “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.”). Further, Hain did not address the 
fraudulent joinder standard and does not provide a basis for ignoring Tenth Circuit 
precedent, which already takes a strict approach to fraudulent joinder that accords with the 
presumption against removal jurisdiction. See Skidmore v. Schinke, 171 F.4th 319 324 n.4 
(4th Cir. 2026) (noting that the Fourth Circuit’s fraudulent joinder standard remains good 
law even after Hain). 
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. See Porter v. State 
Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. CIV-25-187-R, 2026 WL 1078498, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Apr. 21, 
2026). Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion to Remand [Doc. No. 34] is therefore DENIED. 

3 
IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of June, 2026. 

Passage view · GavelSight