NOTICE AND ORDER FOR TELEPHONE CONFERENCE

ERIN WILDER-DOOMES, Magistrate Judge.

Marven Gardner ("Plaintiff") filed suit against Bianca Tyree Latin ("Latin"), Lyndon Southern Insurance Company ("Lyndon Southern"), and Kia Motors America, Inc. ("Kia") in state court on or about November 20, 2019.1 Per his Petition, Plaintiff alleges that he is the surviving spouse of Joyce Gardner ("Gardner"), who died as a result of a motor vehicle collision that occurred on or about November 20, 2018.2 He asserts a "wrongful death and survival action" against Defendants "to recover all damages for the injuries sustained by the decedent, Joyce Gardner."3 Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that, at the time of the collision, Gardner was a passenger in a 2007 Kia Spectra being driven by Latin.4 He alleges that Latin "failed to timely bring her vehicle to a stop, thereby causing the vehicle to suddenly and without warning strike a 2015, Toyota Sienna, driven by Janet Faye Lawler."5 Plaintiff alleges that Gardner was "violently ejected forward, which caused her to strike her head on the windshield of 2007 Kia Spectra."6 He also alleges that the passenger side airbag of the 2007 Kia Spectra, "which was designed, made and/or manufactured by [KIA]," failed to deploy during the collision.7 Plaintiff contends that the "direct cause and/or proximate cause of the collision and decedent's ultimate death, were a result of the specific actions of Defendants," and he sets forth specific acts of negligence and/or legal fault by Latin and Kia.8 Finally, Plaintiff alleges that Lyndon Southern insured the 2007 Kia Spectra at the time of the collision.9

On January 8, 2020, Kia removed the suit to this Court, asserting federal subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.10 With respect to the citizenship of the parties, Kia alleges that Plaintiff is a citizen of Louisiana, that Lyndon Southern is a "foreign insurance company, domiciled in Delaware," and that Kia is a California corporation with its principal place of business in California.11 Kia further asserts that while Latin is a "Louisiana citizen and thus deemed a `forum defendant,'" her citizenship should not be considered for diversity jurisdiction purposes because she "is not a proper party to the litigation and was improperly joined."12 Specifically, Kia argues that "Latin, daughter of the decedant [sic], was not and cannot be considered as causing any alleged airbag defect in the subject vehicle."13

On January 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand, arguing that this suit should be remanded to state court because Latin is properly joined and complete diversity does not exist.14 Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that both he and Latin, the driver of the vehicle in which Gardner was riding at the time of the collision, are Louisiana citizens.15

The party seeking removal bears a heavy burden of proving that the joinder of the in-state party was improper."16 "`[A]ny contested issues of fact and any ambiguities of state law must be resolved' in favor of remand,"17 and "[a]ny doubts regarding whether removal jurisdiction is proper should be resolved against federal jurisdiction."18 The Fifth Circuit has "recognized two ways to establish improper joinder: `(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.'"19 As to the second method, the test "is whether the defendant has demonstrated that there is no possibility of recovery by the plaintiff against an in-state defendant, which stated differently means that there is no reasonable basis for the district court to predict that the plaintiff might be able to recover against an in-state defendant."20

Kia appears to rely on the second method of establishing improper joinder. A court may resolve this issue in one of two ways. "The court may conduct a Rule 12(b)(6) analysis, looking at the allegations of the complaint to determine whether the complaint states a claim under state law against the in-state defendant. Ordinarily, if a plaintiff can survive a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge, there is no improper joinder. That said, there are cases, hopefully few in number, in which a plaintiff has stated a claim, but has misstated or omitted discrete facts that would determine the propriety of joinder. In such cases, the district court may, in its discretion, pierce the pleadings and conduct a summary inquiry."21 The Fifth Circuit has cautioned that such summary inquiry "is appropriate only to identify the presence of discrete and undisputed facts that would preclude plaintiff's recovery against the in-state defendant."22

"Federal courts are duty bound to determine their own jurisdiction and may do so sua sponte if necessary."23 This Court cannot ensure the existence of federal subject matter jurisdiction until the issue of Latin's joinder is resolved. The Court believes a telephone conference to discuss the issues raised in Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is warranted. The parties should be prepared to discuss improper joinder in light of Jasmine v. National Casualty Co.,24 Wilson v. Ace American Insurance Co.,25 and similar cases.26

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a telephone conference is set for Monday, January 27, 2020, at 1:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Erin Wilder-Doomes to discuss the [3] Motion to Remand filed by Plaintiff, Marven Gardner. The purpose of the conference is to discuss the pending Motion to Remand prior to the deadline to file an opposition memorandum, therefore, it is not necessary to provide an opposition memorandum before the telephone conference. If the conference does not resolve the issues raised in the Motion, an opposition memorandum may still be filed within the deadlines imposed by Local Civil Rules. Counsel participating in the telephone conference shall call 877-336-1839 using access code 9565780 five minutes prior to conference.