Kallys Albert, Sr. v. GEICO General Insurance Compan, No. 19-1738 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Shepherd, Kelly and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. Dismissal of Section 1981 claims affirmed without comment; the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining it would not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-1738 ___________________________ Kallys Albert, Sr. lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. GEICO General Insurance Company; John Doe lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________ Submitted: November 12, 2019 Filed: November 26, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SHEPHERD, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Kallys Albert, Sr., appeals the district court’s1 dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and state law claims. Having carefully conducted a de novo review of the record and arguments on appeal, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed the section 1981 claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. See Topchian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 760 F.3d 843, 848-49 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard of review). We further conclude that the district court properly dismissed the remaining state law claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) because Albert failed to meet his burden of proving the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence. See Branson Label, Inc. v. City of Branson, Mo., 793 F.3d 910, 915 (8th Cir. 2015) (standard of review); see also Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Vein Centers for Excellence, Inc., 912 F.3d 1076, 1080-81 (8th Cir. 2019) (holding that when defendant challenges plaintiff’s allegations, plaintiff must prove, by preponderance of evidence, that amount in controversy did not appear to legal certainty to be less than $75,000). The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Albert’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims if court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction); Labickas v. Ark. State Univ., 78 F.3d 333, 334-35 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (following dismissal of federal claims, court may dismiss state-law claims without prejudice). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Susan Richard Nelson, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Elizabeth Cowan Wright, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
