“The burden of proving that complete diversity exists rests upon the party who seeks to invoke the court’s diversity jurisdiction.”
How later courts described this case
- “The burden of proving that complete diversity exists rests upon the party who seeks to invoke the court’s diversity jurisdiction.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LATOYA BROWN CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 21-2384
ZOAN PIERCE, ET AL. SECTION “R” (3)
ORDER
On December 27, 2021, plaintiff Latoya Brown filed a complaint
against a dozen defendants. In the amount-in-controversy section of her
complaint, plaintiff wrote, “[p]hone hacked, can’t email or contact anyone
important,” and in the statement-of-claim section, she wrote, “car, phone.”1
These are the only descriptions she provided of the nature of her claims.
Plaintiff left blank the jurisdiction section of her complaint. In the section
entitled, “If the Basis for Jurisdiction is Diversity Citizenship,” plaintiff
indicted that she is a citizen of Louisiana.2 But in the list of parties to the
complaint, plaintiff indicated that at least half of the named defendants also
reside in Louisiana.3
1 R. Doc. 1 at 6.
2 Id. at 5.
3 Id. at 2-3.
On January 7, 2022, Magistrate Judge Dana Douglas issued a Rule to
Show Cause Order that directed plaintiff to provide a written statement of
her position concerning this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction by February
9, 2022.4 The order indicated that her “failure to respond in writing as
directed may result in the dismissal of the captioned complaint.”5 Plaintiff
did not respond to the order.
Thereafter, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending this Court dismiss plaintiff’s
complaint without prejudice because plaintiff “has not established diversity
nor federal question jurisdiction, and this Court lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction over her complaint.”6 Plaintiff did not object to the R&R.
In the absence of objections, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error.
Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996); see
also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note (1983) (“When no timely
objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error
on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). The
Court finds that there is no clear error.
4 R. Doc. 3 at 3-4.
5 Id. at 4.
6 R. Doc. 4 at 4.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. MidCap Media
Finance, LLC v. Pathway Data, Inc., 929 F.3d 310, 313 (5th Cir. 2019).
There is nothing on the face of the complaint to indicate that plaintiff’s claim
arises under federal law. Accordingly, there appears to be no federal
question jurisdiction. The court also lacks diversity jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1332, as the complaint makes clear that there is not complete
diversity among the parties. Plaintiff identified herself as a citizen of
Louisiana, and although the complaint indicates that some defendants may
be citizens of other states, at least six of them appear to be citizens of
Louisiana. Plaintiff thus has not met her burden of establishing complete
diversity. Getty Oil Corp., Div. of Texaco, Inc. v. Ins. Co. of North Am., 841
F.2d 1254, 1258-59 (5th Cir. 1988) (“The burden of proving that complete
diversity exists rests upon the party who seeks to invoke the court’s diversity
jurisdiction.”).
District courts must “‘dismiss the action’ whenever ‘it appears by
suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the
subject matter.’” Avitts v. Amoco Prod. Co., 53 F.3d 690, 693 (5th Cir. 1995)
(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3)). The R&R properly recommends that the
Court do so here. The Court hereby approves the R&R and adopts it as its
own opinion. Plaintiffs complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this__2nd__ day of November, 2022.
bern Varea
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE