IN RE: Southland Circle, LLC - Appellant Plaintiff; Certified Question, United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana Number(s) 2:23-cv-00855-WBV-DPC;

Certification denied.

JDH

JTG

WJC

PDG

Weimer, C.J., dissents and assigns reasons.

Crichton, J., would grant certification and assigns reasons.

McCallum, J., would grant certification.

WEIMER, C.J. dissenting

I would grant the request to answer the certified question. This court is singularly qualified to provide the federal court with an answer on how to interpret the substantive law of Louisiana. The issue involved in this case impacts a substantial number of Louisiana citizens, and a definitive answer by this court would expedite the resolution of the litigation benefitting the parties to this litigation as well as numerous similarly situated litigants.

CRICHTON, J., would grant and assigns reasons:

I disagree with the majority decision to deny certification in this matter. In my view, the Louisiana Supreme Court has an interest in opining on significant issues of Louisiana state law, including the issue presented here of whether La. R.S. 22:868(D) prohibits the enforcement of arbitration clauses in insurance contracts for surplus line insurers. As I have stated, "[c]ertification promotes comity between the state and federal courts, permitting the highest court of the state to develop principles of state substantive law." Goodrich v. United States, 21-988 (La. 11/17/21), 327 So.3d 492 (Crichton, J., dissenting from the denial of certification). See also Seguin v. Remington Arms Company, L.L.C., 22-0037 (La. 3/22/22), 334 So.3d 752 (Crichton, J., dissenting from the denial of certification). In my view, and notwithstanding my concern about the implications of newly revised La. Sup. Ct. Rule XII, because of the timing of these matters, this Court should have granted certification in this case in order to promote the "cooperative judicial federalism" that the certification procedure contemplates. Id., citing Lehman Bros. v. Schein, 416 U.S. 386, 390, 94 S.Ct. 1741, 40 L.Ed.2d 215 (1974).