Ricks v. Wal-Mart Louisiana, LLC ( 2024 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA AMY RICKS CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 24-1773 WAL-MART LOUISIANA, LLC, ET AL. SECTION “O” ORDER & REASONS This Court is duty-bound to examine the basis of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte.1 Subject matter jurisdiction in this case is premised upon diversity of citizenship.2 Cases arising under 28 U.S.C. §1332 require complete diversity of citizenship.3 The concept of complete diversity requires that all persons on one side of the controversy be citizens of different states then all persons on the other side.4 On November 14, 2024, the Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend.5 Plaintiff’s First Amended, Supplemental, and Restated Complaint was thereafter filed in the record, naming Kelly Calagna as additional defendant in the above-captioned matter.6 In her state court petition, Plaintiff alleges that she is a resident of the state of Louisiana.7 And now, in her amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Kelly Calagna is an individual domiciled in the state of Louisiana.8 The parties are 1 Lane v. Halliburton, 529 F.3d 548, 565 (5th Cir. 2008). 2 See 28 U.S.C. §1332; Doc. 1 at 1. 3 See Stiftung v. Plains Mktg., L.P., 603 F.3d 295, 297 (5th Cit. 2010) (citations omitted). 4 McClaughlin v. Miss. Power Co., 376 F.3d 344, 353 (5th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 5 ECF No. 25. 6 ECF No. 1-1. 7 ECF No. 26. 8 ECF No. 26 at 1. therefore not completely diverse.? Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter and this case must be remanded to state court.1° CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the above-captioned matter is REMANDED to the 21st Judicial District Court for the Parish of Tangipahoa. New Orleans, Louisiana this 18th day of November, 2025. BRANDON 8. LONG □□□□ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 See McClaughlin, 376 F.3d at 353. 10 FED.R.CIV.P. 12(h)(8) (‘If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”); B&P Rest. Grp., LLC v. Eagan Ins. Agency, LLC, 538 F.Supp. 3d 632, 637 (E.D. La. 2021) (“Remand to state court is appropriate if the federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.”)