Henry v. Southwest Airlines

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LOUIS HENRY CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 22-0944

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO. SECTION “B”(4)

ORDER AND REASONS

The Court raises subject matter jurisdiction issues sua

sponte after dismissing all federal claims. Rec. Doc. 21. For the

following reasons,

IT IS ORDERED that the above captioned case is DISMISSED by

declining supplemental jurisdiction over the sole remaining state

law claims.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This lawsuit arose from an incident at the Louis Armstrong

International Airport on April 7, 2021. Rec. Doc. 1 (Complaint).

During the Spring of 2021, Louis Henry (“Plaintiff”) purchased a

roundtrip plane ticket from Houston, Texas to New Orleans,

Louisiana on Southwest Airlines (“Defendant” or “Southwest”). Id.

Plaintiff requested wheelchair assistance at the time of purchase

due to pre-existing physical injuries that combined to render him

disabled. Id. However, when he arrived at the Louis Armstrong

International Airport for his return flight to Houston, Southwest

did not provide him with a wheelchair. Id. Plaintiff made multiple

requests to Southwest from when he arrived at the airport to when

his plane boarded, but Southwest did not provide him with a

wheelchair. Id.

Attempting to board the plane without the aid of a wheelchair,

plaintiff fell forward, hitting his head, should, and neck. Rec.

Doc. 1. Paramedics responded to the plaintiff’s fall, and a

customer service representative informed him that an incident

report and report number would be provided to him. Id. Plaintiff

asserts he has yet to receive the incident report or report number

from Southwest. Id. As a result of his fall, plaintiff claims he

has sustained injuries to his knees, neck, back, and wrist. Id.

On April 7, 2022, plaintiff filed suit in this Court, seeking

to recover damages he sustained in the above-described incident.

Rec. Doc. 1. He has alleged five causes of action, including a

claim under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act

(“ADA”) and a claim under the Air Carrier Access Act (“ACAA”).

Id. On July 26, 2022, defendant Southwest filed the instant motion

to dismiss, seeking to dismiss plaintiff’s claim pursuant to 49

U.S.C. § 41705, the Air Carrier Access Act (“ACAA”). Rec. Doc. 7.

Plaintiff filed a timely opposition on August 9, 2022. Rec. Doc.

12. Thereafter, defendant filed a reply in support of its motion

on August 15, 2022. Rec. Doc. 18.

On August 19, 2022, this Court dismissed plaintiff’s claims

under the ACAA, 49 U.S.C. § 41705. Rec. Doc. 19 at 1. Then on

August 31, 2022, this Court dismissed plaintiff’s claims under

Title III of the ADA. Rec. Doc. 21 at 1. After dismissal of the

claims under the ACAA and the ADA, all that remains are plaintiff’s

state law claims. Parties were then given the opportunity to file

memoranda on whether diversity jurisdiction exists. Id. at 8.

II. LAW AND ANALYSIS

A. Diversity Jurisdiction

District courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions

that are (1) between citizens of different states and (2) where

the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000,

exclusive of interest and cost. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). A

corporation is a citizen of every state by which it has been

incorporated and of the state where it has its principal place of

business. MidCap Media Fin., L.L.C. v. Pathway Data, Inc., 929

F.3d 310, 314 (5th Cir. 2019) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1)).

Principal place of business “refers to the place where the

corporation’s high level officers direct, control, and coordinate

the corporation’s activities,” i.e., where the corporation’s

“never center” is located. Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 80-

81 (2010). The nerve center is “typically found at a corporation’s

headquarters.” Id. at 81. An individual is a citizen of the state

where domiciled. Coury v. Prot, 85 F.3d 244, 248 (5th Cir. 1996).

Defendant Southwest Airlines Co. is a corporation, and as

such is deemed a citizen of its state of incorporation and the

state in which its principal place of business is located.

Southwest is incorporated under the laws of Texas. Southwest

Airlines Co, SEC.REPORT (last visited September 14, 2022),

https://sec.report/CIK/0000092380. Southwest is headquartered in

Texas and maintains that its principal place of business is located

in Texas. See Rec. Doc. 23 at 2. For purposes of diversity

jurisdiction, defendant is a citizen of Texas.

Plaintiff Louis Henry as an individual is a citizen of the

state of his domicile. Plaintiff is domiciled in the State of

Texas, and therefore is deemed a citizen of Texas. See Rec. Doc.

1 at 1. In his memorandum regarding diversity of citizenship of

the parties, plaintiff further “concedes that there is no complete

diversity between the parties . . . .” Rec. Doc. 24 at 1.

Because there is no complete diversity of citizenship between

parties, the Court cannot exercise diversity jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1332.

B. Supplemental Jurisdiction

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to

exercise supplemental jurisdiction if:

(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State

law, (2) the claim substantially predominates over the

claim or claims over which the district court has

original jurisdiction, (3) the district court has

dismissed all claims over which it has original

jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional circumstances, there

are other compelling reasons for declining

jurisdiction.”

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (emphasis added). “District courts enjoy wide

discretion in determining whether to retain supplemental

jurisdiction over a state claim once all federal claims are

dismissed.” Heggemeier v. Caldwell Cnty., Tex., 826 F.3d 861 (5th

Cir. 2016) (quoting Noble v. White, 996 F.2d 797, 799 (5th Cir.

1993)); see also Manyweather v. Woodlawn Manor, Inc., 40 F.4th

237, 246 (5th Cir. 2022) (finding the district court did not abuse

its discretion by declining supplemental jurisdiction after

plaintiff’s state law claims were dismissed).

Plaintiff cites to Batiste v. Island Records, Inc., 179 F.3d

217, 227-28 (5th Cir. 1992) and Newport, Ltd. v. Sears, Roebuck &

Co., 941 F.2d 302, 308 (5th Cir. 1992) in support of his contention

that this court should exercise its discretionary supplemental

jurisdiction. However, those cases are not persuasive in this

instance.

The court in Batiste held it was an abuse of discretion by

the district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction where the

factors of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness pointed to

retaining jurisdiction over the state law claims as the case had

been pending in the district court for three years with a trial to

begin in month. See Batiste, 179 F.3d at 228. Similarly in Newport,

the case had been pending for four years, produced thousands of

pages of record, hundreds of depositions, thousands of pages of

discovery production, a pretrial order over 200 pages, that

“declining to hear this case on the eve of trial constituted an

abuse of the trial court’s discretion.” Newport, Ltd., 941 F.2d at

307-08.

Here, the complaint was filed on April 7, 2022, and has not

been pending in this court for six months. Rec. Doc. 1. Further,

this court has ruled on only two opposed motions, see Rec. Doc.

19; Rec. Doc. 21. The current scheduling order has discovery to be

completed by March 28, 2023, and trial set for May 8, 2023. Rec.

Doc. 23. Unlike Batiste or Newport, this case is in its infancy,

having not even started discovery. See Rec. Doc. 24 (emphasis

added) (“A trial date of May 8, 2023 has been set, and the parties

are able to begin the discovery process.”). In those cases,

supplemental jurisdiction was refused with under a month left until

trial, here, trial is not scheduled for over seven months, and

minimal judicial resources have been consumed up to this point.

Because the factors of judicial economy, convenience, and

fairness indicate that this case belongs in state court after all

federal claims have been resolved in the early stages and only

state-law claims remain, the court declines supplemental

jurisdiction. See Newport, Ltd., 941 F.2d at 307 (quoting Carnegie-

Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)).

New Orleans, Louisiana this 21th day of September, 2022

___________________________________

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE