Arceneaux

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

DENNIS ARCENEAUX CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 25-2354

HUNTINGTON INGALLS INC., ET SECTION “R” (1)

AL

ORDER AND REASONS

Defendants Huntington Ingalls Incorporated and Certain

Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London and London Market Companies

(collectively, “Avondale”) move to dismiss plaintiff Dennis Arceneaux’s

claims for declaratory and injunctive relief.1 Arceneaux opposes both

motions.2 For the following reasons, the Court grants the partial motions to

dismiss.

I. BACKGROUND

Arceneaux alleges that he worked at Avondale shipyard from 1966 to

1968 in the electrical department and on vessels under construction.3

1 R. Docs. 39, 40. London Market Insurers are sued as the alleged

liability insurers of Avondale and various alleged Avondale executive

officers.

2 R. Doc. 42.

3 R. Doc. 1, at 17.

Arceneaux alleges that this work exposed him to injurious concentrations of

asbestos dust and fibers and led to his June 2025 mesothelioma diagnosis.4

Arceneaux first filed suit in the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Arceneaux v. Huntington Ingalls Inc., 2025 WL 3140367 (E.D. La. Nov. 10,

2025) (Fallon, J.). In that suit, Arceneaux sought declarative and injunctive

relief. Id. He alleged that he wanted to file a bodily injury claim in state court

and was seeking a ruling on Avondale’s theoretical federal officer status and

to enjoin Avondale from removing his hypothetical state court suit to federal

court. Id.

Avondale filed a motion to dismiss in that suit under Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Id. Judge Fallon found that the court did not have

subject matter jurisdiction over the action as there was no justiciable

controversy and dismissed the action without prejudice. Id.

Arceneaux then brought this suit in federal court. This time,

Arceneaux brings a claims for declarative and injunctive relief and for bodily

injury.5 Specifically, Arceneaux asks the Court to declare that Avondale

cannot establish federal officer status because Avondale cannot establish

entitlement to either government contractor immunity or derivative

4 Id.

5 R. Doc. 1, at 15-16.

sovereign immunity.6 Further, Arceneaux asks for an injunction prohibiting

Avondale from removing this action—which Arceneaux filed in federal court

in the first instance—to federal court if the removal is premised on

Avondale’s status as a federal officer.7

Avondale moves to dismiss Arceneaux’s claims for declarative and

injunctive relief.8 Avondale asserts that the court lacks subject matter

jurisdiction over Arceneaux’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief.9 In

the alternative, Avondale asserts that Arceneaux’s claims for declaratory and

injunctive relief fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.10

The Court considers the partial motion to dismiss below.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal courts are courts of limited subject matter jurisdiction. The

court’s power to resolve disputes is limited to cases and controversies. U.S.

Const. art. III, § 2; see Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61

(1992). The judicial doctrine of standing has evolved from this constitutional

6 Id. at 17.

7 Id.

8 R. Docs. 39, 40. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated and Certain

Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London and London Market Companies

raise identical arguments in their motions to dismiss.

9 Id.

10 Id.

restriction. A lawsuit is not a case or controversy unless the plaintiff can

demonstrate that he has standing to bring suit. Id.

Standing is a “threshold issue in every federal case.” Warth v. Seldin,

422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975). Standing requires the plaintiff to show (i) an injury

in fact that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; (ii) that the

injury was likely caused by the defendant; and (iii) it is likely (as opposed to

merely speculative) that the injury will be redressed by a favorable judicial

decision. See id.

A plaintiff must have standing for each claim asserted and for each

form of relief sought, particularly when a plaintiff asserts multiple claims or

seeks multiple forms of relief. Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 105, (1983);

El Paso County, Texas v. Trump, 982 F.3d 332, 338 (5th Cir. 2020). Absent

standing, the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the claim.

When a Rule 12(b)(1) motion challenging subject matter jurisdiction is filed

in conjunction with other Rule 12 motions, the court must consider the Rule

12(b)(1) jurisdictional attack before addressing the merits. Ramming v.

United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001).

III. DISCUSSION

Here, Arceneaux seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent

Avondale from raising affirmative defenses and removing his theoretical

state-court case to federal court. Arceneaux must establish standing for each

claim asserted and form of relief sought. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 105.

A. Declaratory Judgment

Arceneaux seeks a declaratory judgment under the Declaratory

Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a), that Avondale does not qualify as a

federal officer because Avondale cannot establish entitlement to potential

affirmative defenses.11 The party seeking a declaratory judgment has the

“burden of establishing the actual case or controversy.” Cardinal Chem. Co.

v. Morton Int’l Inc., 508 U.S. 83, 95 (1993).

A declaratory judgment claim is justiciable if “a substantial controversy

of sufficient immediacy and reality exists between parties having adverse

legal interests,” Venator Grp. Specialty, Inc. v. Matthew/Muniot Family,

LLC, 322 F.3d 835, 838 (5th Cir. 2003), and the court has an independent

basis for subject matter jurisdiction, Elldakli v. Garland, 64 F.4th 666, 670

(5th Cir. 2023). For a declaratory judgment action to be justiciable, it “must

be such that it can presently be litigated and decided and not hypothetical,

conjectural, conditional, or based upon the possibility of a factual situation

that may never develop.” AXA Re Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Day, 162 F. App'x.

316, 319 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing Brown & Root, Inc. v. Big Rock Corp., 383

11 R. Doc. 1.

F.2d 662, 665 (5th Cir. 1967)); see also Public Serv. Comm'n of Utah, 344

U.S. 237, 246 (1952) (“when the request is not for ultimate determination of

rights but for preliminary findings and conclusions intended to fortify the

litigant against future regulation, it would be a rare case in which the relief

should be granted”).

A declaratory judgment as to the validity of a defense the defendant

may possibly raise in a future case or proceeding is not justiciable. Calderon

v. Ashmus, 523 U.S. 740, 746-47 (1998); see also Coffman v. Breeze Corps.,

323 U.S. 316, 323-24 (1945) (holding that there was no case or controversy

because the declaratory judgment action sought a declaration that an act that

would arise only as a defense was unconstitutional); Nautilus Ins. Co. v.

Nevco Waterproofing, 202 F. App’x 667, 669 (5th Cir. 2006) (holding that

the Court need not decide under the Declaratory Judgment Act “the validity

of a defense in a hypothetical future suit”). It is an action based on a

hypothetical situation that may never develop if the defense is not raised. See

AXA Re Prop, 162 F. App’x 316 at 319. That Avondale almost always raises

federal officer status and then removes to federal court does not change the

analysis.12 Because the declaratory judgment claim is not justiciable, the

12 Avondale asserts that since “2020, Avondale has not removed

approximately 25% of the mesothelioma cases filed against it.” R. Doc.

44, at 2.

Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over it. The Court must

dismiss the declaratory judgment claim without prejudice. See, e.g., Hitt v.

City of Pasadena, 561 F.2d 606, 608 (5th Cir. 1977).

B. Injunctive Relief

The Court also lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Arceneaux’s claim

for injunctive relief. The claim for injunctive relief here “expressly

depend[s]” on the prior adjudication of Arceneaux’s claim for declaratory

relief. State of Tex. v. West Pub. Co., 882 F.2d 171, 177 (5th Cir. 1989). There

can be no predicate adjudication of Arceneaux’s claim for declaratory relief

because there is not a justiciable claim for declaratory relief before the Court.

See id.

Further, Arceneaux does not have standing to bring his claim for

injunctive relief. To demonstrate that a claim meets the Article III standing

requirement when a plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief, a plaintiff must

allege facts establishing “actual present harm or a significant possibility of

future harm.” Bauer v. Texas, 341 F.3d 352, 357 (5th Cir. 2003).

Here, Arceneaux makes no such allegations. The injury Arceneaux is

seeking to avoid with an injunction is the theoretical possibility that

Avondale would seek to remove a future state-court claim against them to

federal court. The possibility that Avondale could remove a future claim to

federal court is not a significant possibility of future harm. A generalized

desire to litigate in state court is insufficient to satisfy the injury-in-fact

prong of the standing requirement. See Morgan v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc.,

879 F.3d 602, 607 (5th Cir. 2018). Because Arceneaux has not shown an

injury-in-fact as to his claim for injunctive relief, Arceneaux does not have

standing for that claim.

The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claim over

Arceneaux’s claim for injunctive relief. The Court thus dismisses

Arceneaux’s claim for injunctive relief without prejudice. See, e.g., Hitt, 561

F.2d at 608 (noting that dismissals for lack of subject matter jurisdiction are

without prejudice).

IV. DIVERSITY JURISDICTION

Arceneaux’s complaint asserts that this Court has subject matter

jurisdiction over his personal injury claims based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1332,

diversity jurisdiction.13 Diversity jurisdiction exists only when there is

complete diversity of citizenship, and the amount in controversy exceeds

$75,000, exclusive of interests and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The Court is

obligated to consider whether it has subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte.

13 R. Doc. 1 at 3.

The Lamar Co., L.L.C. v. Mississippi Transp. Comm’n, 976 F.3d 524, 548

(5th Cir. 2020).

Plaintiff avers that he is a resident and citizen of Mississippi. He avers

that Huntington Ingalls, Inc. is domiciled in Virginia and that Underwriters

at Lloyd’s London is domiciled in New York. Plaintiff does not allege the

citizenship of the remaining defendants.

To allege the citizenship of a limited liability company properly,

plaintiff must identify each of the members of the limited liability company

and must properly allege the citizenship of each member in accordance with

the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a) and (c). Harvey v. Grey Wolf

Drilling Co., 542 F. 3d 1077, 1080 (5th Cir. 2008). Plaintiff must identify

and allege citizenship of each of the members of all defendant L.L.C.s,

including: Bryan Chevrolet, L.L.C.; Crosby Valve, L.L.C; Sterling Fluid

Systems, L.L.C.; and Warren Pumps, L.L.C.

To allege the citizenship of the corporations properly, plaintiff must

identify where the corporations are incorporated and where the corporations

have their principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff must allege

the citizenship of all defendant corporations, including: Trinity Industries,

Inc.; Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company; Union Pacific Railroad

Co.; FMC Corporation; International Paper Company; Paramount Global;

REDCO Corporation; Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc.; Uniroyal Holding, Inc.;

Viking Pump, Inc.; Clayton Industries; and RTX Corporation.

V. CONCLUSION

The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Arceneaux’s claims for

declaratory and injunctive relief. The Court DISMISSES Arceneaux’s claims

for declaratory and injunctive relief WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff, Dennis Arceneaux, shall have until

February 19, 2026 to file an amended complaint, properly setting forth the

citizenship of all the parties, as required to establish that the Court has

diversity jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 3rd day of February, 2026.

_derak Vavee

SARAH S. VANCE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10