Jackson v. Allstate Insurance Company ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LEATHA DIANNELLA JACKSON CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 23-2206 ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, SECTION “R” (1) ET AL. ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court is defendants Deani Milano and Mindy Geiger’s motion to dismiss1 and defendant Adam Bosso’s motion to dismiss.2 Both motions are opposed.3 For the following reasons, the Court grants the motions. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Leatha Jackson filed this action pro se and in forma pauperis on June 26, 2023.4 In her complaint, she alleges that she filed a claim on August 29, 2021, seeking to recover under a flood insurance policy for 1 R. Doc. 21. 2 R. Doc. 15. 3 R. Doc. 22. 4 R. Doc. 1. damage to a property in New Orleans, Louisiana.5 The action she refers to was dismissed with prejudice on July 27, 2023.6 In the present action, Jackson seeks to recover $160,000 for property damage as well as damages for emotional distress, pain, and “all payment that [she] didn’t receive” for damage to the property.7 Jackson alleges diversity and federal question jurisdiction.8 Defendants Deani Milano, Mindy Geiger, and Adam Bosso contend that this Court lacks jurisdiction because there is no federal question at issue, and the parties are not diverse.9 The Court considers the parties’ arguments below. II. LEGAL STANDARD Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and possess power over only those cases authorized by the United States Constitution and federal statutes. Coury v. Prot, 85 F.3d 244, 248 (5th Cir. 1996). The Court must “consider the . . . jurisdictional attack before addressing any attack on the merits.” Ramming v. U.S., 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001). If a district court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of a plaintiff’s claims, 5 Id. at 5. 6 Jackson v. Allstate Insurance Company, No. 22-2385, R. Doc. 28. 7 R. Doc. 1 at 5. 8 Id. at 4. 9 R. Doc. 15-2; R. Doc. 21-1. dismissal is required. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). The lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time during pendency of the case by any party or by the court. See Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 456 (2004) (“A litigant generally may raise a court’s lack of subject-matter jurisdiction at any time in the same civil action, even initially at the highest appellate instance.”); McDonal v. Abbott Labs., 408 F.3d 177, 182 n.5 (5th Cir. 2005) (“[A]ny federal court may raise subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte.”). A court’s dismissal of a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not a decision on the merits, and the dismissal does not ordinarily prevent the plaintiff from pursuing the claim in another forum. See Hitt v. City of Pasedena, 561 F.2d 606, 608 (5th Cir. 1977). When examining a factual challenge to subject matter jurisdiction that does not implicate the merits of a plaintiff’s cause of action, the district court has substantial authority “to weigh the evidence and satisfy itself as to the existence of its power to hear the case.” Arena v. Graybar Elec. Co., 669 F.3d 214, 223 (5th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, the Court may consider matters outside the pleadings, such as testimony and affidavits. See Superior MRI Servs., Inc. v. All. Healthcare Servs., Inc., 778 F.3d 502, 504 (5th Cir. 2015). A court has federal question jurisdiction when the plaintiff’s claim arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A claim arises under federal law when federal law creates the cause of action. Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 312 (2005). When “a private citizen relies on a federal statute as the basis of federal question jurisdiction, that statute must provide a private cause of action, or else a federal court will not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear the dispute.” Lowe v. ViewPoint Bank, 972 F. Supp. 2d 947, 954 (N.D. Tex. 2013) (citing Merrell Dow Pharms. Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 817 (1986)). For diversity jurisdiction to exist, the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000, and there must be complete diversity between plaintiffs and defendants. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373 (1978). Having a plaintiff and a defendant who are citizens of the same state ordinarily destroys complete diversity. See McLaughlin v. Miss. Power Co., 376 F.3d 344, 353 (5th Cir. 2004). III. DISCUSSION Plaintiff points to no federal law that might give rise to federal question jurisdiction in this case. See Vela v. Manning, 469 F. App’x 319, 321 (5th Cir. 2012) (“[A] federal court does not have federal question jurisdiction unless a federal question appears on the face of the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint.” (quoting Elam v. Kan. City S. Ry. Co., 635 F.3d 796, 803 (5th Cir. 2011)). As to diversity jurisdiction, plaintiff’s complaint alleges that she is a citizen of Louisiana, and that purported defendant “Neilsen & Treas” is a corporate citizen of Louisiana.10 She also sued attorneys Adam Bosso, Kevin Riche, Deani Milano, and non-attorney Mindy Geiger as defendants, listing their addresses in Louisiana.11 Defendant Bosso moves to dismiss on the grounds that there is no diversity of citizenship because he is a citizen of Louisiana, as are defendants Riche, Milano, and Geiger.12 Defendants Milano and Geiger’s motion to dismiss similarly states that most of the defendants in this case, like the plaintiff, are citizens of Louisiana.13 Plaintiff does not offer any contrary evidence of the parties’ citizenship. Accordingly, the Court finds that complete diversity is lacking. The action must be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (“[W]hen a federal court concludes that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the complaint in its entirety.”). 10 R. Doc. 1 at 5. 11 Id. at 2. 12 R. Doc. 15-2 at 2-3. 13 R. Doc. 21-1 at 6. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. All pending motions in the case'4 are DISMISSED as moot. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 1st _ day of November, 2023. SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 R. Docs. 20.