# Von Derhaar v. Stalbert

> District Court, E.D. Louisiana · November 14, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10188575

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Louisiana
- **Decided:** November 14, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10188575

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KARL VON DERHAAR CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 21-1653

MICHAEL STALBERT, ET AL. SECTION “B”(5)

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court are defendant the City of New Orleans’ motion
to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Rec. Doc. 93),
defendant Michael Stalbert’s adopted motion to dismiss for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction (Rec. Doc. 101), plaintiff’s
opposition (Rec. Docs. 135, 136), defendant City of New Orleans’
reply (Rec. Doc. 171), and defendant Stalbert’s adopted reply (Rec.
Doc. 175).1 For the following reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that the defendants’ motions to dismiss for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Rec. Docs. 93 and 101) are
DENIED. The amended complaint asserts cognizable claims under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 and applicable state law. This ruling does not
foreclose consideration of qualified immunity and other claims
made by these and other defendants.

1 Defendant Michael Stalbert adopted the City of New Orleans’ motion to
dismiss and its reply as his own. Rec. Doc. 101-1; 175-1 (adopted motions).
Plaintiff unexplainably filed identical responses to defendants’ motions.
Rec. Docs. 135, 136. Because the motions appear to be identical, and for the
sake of parsimony, this Court will only address the arguments once.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Karl Von Derhaar (“plaintiff”) was a Criminologist analyzing
drug samples for the New Orleans Police Department (“NOPD”) from

October 28, 2018 until September 3, 2020. Rec. Doc. 53 at 3; Rec.
Doc. 93 at 1. Plaintiff routinely made complaints about the
adequacy and safety of the NOPD crime lab’s tests and equipment,
but the complaints routinely fell on deaf ears. Rec. Doc. 53 at 3;
Rec. Doc. 93 at 2.
On September 2, 2020, plaintiff asked his supervisor,
defendant Sgt. Michael Stalbert, if he could be placed on leave
without pay. Rec. Doc. 53 at 6; Rec. Doc. 93 at 6. Plaintiff’s
reasoning for this request is that he was experiencing “guilt and
anguish” from his unheard complaints and the lab’s inadequate
testing. Rec. Doc. 53 at 6.
The next day, defendants Stalbert and Lt. Kim Williams, the

Supervisor of the NOPD crime lab, traveled to plaintiff’s home to
conduct a “wellness check” because of plaintiff’s alleged “erratic
behavior” at work. Rec. Doc. 53 at 6; Rec. Doc. 93 at 2. Defendants
made their way inside plaintiff’s home and informed him that he
was being forced to go into work to submit a drug test. Rec. Doc.
53 at 6-7. In defendants’ subsequent removal of plaintiff from his
home and into a police car, plaintiff was frisked and was not
allowed to bring his cell phone. Id. at 7. Plaintiff was driven
from his home to the Public Integrity Bureau (“PIB”), forced to
clock into work, and ordered to take a drug test. Id. at 7-9.
On February 1, 2022, plaintiff filed his First Amended and

Supplemental Complaint alleging violations of the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well
as a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and various state law claims.
Rec. Doc. 53 at 9. On October 6, 2022, defendant City of New
Orleans (the “City”) filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that this
Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this case.
Rec. Doc. 93 at 1; Rec. Doc. 101-1 (Stalbert’s adopted motion).
II. LAW & ANALYSIS
A. This Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction
over this case.

1. Standard of Review
Federal district courts may have subject matter jurisdiction
over a case through 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Federal
district courts have federal question jurisdiction over a case
that arises “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the
United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Thus, a federal district court
has federal question jurisdiction if the plaintiff’s well-pled
complaint alleges a claim “arising” under the United States
Constitution or federal law. See Empire Healthchoice Assurance
Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677, 689–90 (2006) (quoting Franchise
Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal.,
463 U.S. 1, 27–28 (1983)).
Alleged violations of rights under the U.S. Constitution or

42 U.S.C. § 1983 implicate federal question jurisdiction. See
Google, Inc. v. Hood, 822 F.3d. 212, 221 (5th Cir. 2020). However,
a plaintiff’s federal cause of action must also be supported by
adequate factual allegations to make the claim plausible on its
face. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (U.S. 2009); see
also Smith v. Bank One Corp., 03-3372, 2004 WL 1274480, at *2 (E.D.
La. June 7, 2004) (conclusory allegations that “conduct violates
civil and constitutional rights does not satisfy the well-pleaded
complaint rule”). For example, in Mestayer v. City of New Orleans,
this Court had federal subject matter jurisdiction over a case
because plaintiff’s complaint was well-pled and brought pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19-14432, 2020 WL 1903998, at *3 (E.D. La.

April 17, 2020); compare with Louisiana State Bd. of Medical
Examiners v. Feldman, 14–2744, 2014 WL 7342614, at *2 (E.D. La.
Dec. 22, 2014) (court did not have federal question jurisdiction
because complaint alleged violation of state law and not § 1983 or
other constitutional claims).
A federal district court can also have subject matter
jurisdiction over state law claims through supplemental
jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367. A federal district court will
have subject matter jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s state law
claims if they “‘derive from a common nucleus of operative fact,’
such that ‘the relationship between [the federal] claim and the
state claim permits the conclusion that the entire action before
the court comprises but one constitutional case.’” City of Chicago
v. International College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 164-65, (U.S.
1997) (quoting United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715,

725 (1966)).
2. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges claims arising under the
U.S. Constitution and federal law.

On its face, plaintiff’s amended complaint is well-pled and
pleads constitutional and federal causes of action, thus, this
Court has subject matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff’s amended complaint claims that his Fourth
Amendment rights were violated by the defendants via an alleged
unreasonable search and seizure of the plaintiff and his property.
Rec. Doc. 53 at 1-2; 9. Plaintiff’s amended complaint also clearly
claims a violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights when
defendants allegedly deprived plaintiff of his liberty without due
process of law. Id. These claims were also well-pled because the
plaintiff details how defendants allegedly entered his home,
searched it and his person, and seized his person and phone without
probable cause, a warrant, or due process. Id. at 2, 6, 7-8.
Plaintiff also avers that the defendants violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983
and claimed that defendants carried out the alleged violations of
plaintiff’s rights under the color of the statutes, ordinances,
regulations, customs, or usages of Louisiana and New Orleans. See
id. at 2-3. Accordingly, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction

over this matter through 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal question
jurisdiction because the plaintiff’s well-pled complaint avers
claims arising under the Constitution and federal law. Google, 822
F.3d. at 221 (5th Cir. 2020); see also Mestayer, 2020 WL 1903998,
at *3.
Even if plaintiff made worker’s compensation claims, this
Court could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law
claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Since this Court has
subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims arising under
the Constitution and federal law, this Court has the power to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims because they
derive from a “common nucleus of operative fact” with

plaintiff’s federal and constitutional claims. United Mine
Workers, 383 U.S. at 725. Specifically, plaintiff’s claims,
although occurring outside and inside the workplace, derive from
work-related incidents. See id. at 2, 6, 7-8.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 10th day of November, 2022

___________________________________
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10188575. Public record. Not legal advice.