Archive
- December 2024
- November 2023
- July 2022
- October 2021
- August 2021
- March 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- August 2020
- June 2020
- November 2019
- August 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- December 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- December 2017
- September 2017
- June 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- November 2016
- August 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- May 2014
- March 2014
- December 2013
- October 2013
- August 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
Business Dispute Remanded To State Court
The lawsuit entitled Harold Foley, III et al vs SAFG Retirement Services, Inc. et al initially filed in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans and removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana has been remanded back to state court by order dated May 21, 2012 signed by U. S. District Court Judge Jane Triche Milazzo. The Plaintiffs in this high stakes bet-the-ranch litigation are Harold Foley, III, Verlyn Foley,VOB Development and several other companies owned by the Foleys. The Plaintiffs are represented by Bill Aaron, DeWayne Williams and Candice Richards-Forest of Aaron, PLC.
The lead defendant in the Foley lawsuit is SAFG Retirement Services a member of the SunAmerica Financial Group. The SunAmerica Financial Group is an element of American International Group, Inc. (AIG).
In deciding to return the case to state court, the federal judge aptly observed:
"If a court permits joinder of a non-diverse defendant, destroying subject matter jurisdiction, the court must remand the action to the state court…… Here, the Court granted the Plaintiffs leave to file the amended complaint, which included claims against non-diverse defendants. As a result, the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the case and must remand the case to state court."
