McNealy v. Becnel et al, No. 2:2014cv02181 - Document 189 (E.D. La. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS re 167 Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs claims against the Becnel Defendants are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and the Becnel Defendants are dismissed as defendants in this action. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 3/22/2016. (bwn)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
McNealy v. Becnel et al Doc. 189 U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT COU RT EASTERN D ISTRICT OF LOU ISIAN A N EW TON MCN EALY, Plain tiff CIVIL ACTION VERSU S N O. 14 -2 18 1 D ARRYL BECN EL, ET AL., D e fe n d an ts SECTION : “E” ( 2 ) ORD ER AND REASONS Before the Court is a m otion to dism iss filed by Defendants Darryl J . Becnel and the Becn el Law Firm (collectively, the “Becnel Defendants”). 1 The Becnel Defendants contend they should be dism issed from this case because the Court lacks subject-m atter jurisdiction over the claim s asserted again st them . 2 Specifically, the Becnel Defen dants argue the Plaintiff has m ade “no viable federal allegations” against them , such that federal-question jurisdiction is not present. Moreover, the Becnel Defendants note that federal diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction is not present, as they are not diverse from the Plaintiff. As a result, the Becnel Defendants argue that the Court lacks subject-m atter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim s against them . Plaintiff contends the Court has jurisdiction over his claim s again st the Becnel Defendants under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Title 28 , United States Code, Section 1367 provides that “in an y civil action of which the district courts have origin al jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplem ental jurisdiction over all other claim s that are so related to claim s in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the sam e case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.”3 In this case, the 1 R. Doc. 167. Plaintiff Newton McNealy opposes the m otion. See R. Doc. 172. R. Doc. 167-1 at 1– 2. 3 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 2 Dockets.Justia.com claim s asserted against the Becnel Defendants are rooted in Louisiana state-law concepts of negligence an d legal m alpractice. 4 These claim s are unlike Plaintiff’s federal claim s, in which Plaintiff alleges various federal civil rights violations. 5 The Court does not see a sufficient connection between the negligen ce and legal m alpractice claim s asserted against the Becnel Defendants and the alleged federal civil rights violations which provide the basis for this Court’s original subject-m atter jurisdiction. As a result, the Court finds that it does not have supplem ental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim s again st the Becnel Defendants, as they are not so related to the Plaintiff’s federal claim s which are within the Court’s original jurisdiction such that they form part of the sam e case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claim s again st the Becnel Defen dants are hereby D ISMISSED W ITH PREJU D ICE, and the Becn el Defendants are dism issed as defendants in this action. N e w Orle a n s , Lo u is ian a, th is 2 2 n d d ay o f March , 2 0 16 . __________ __ _______ __________ SU SIE MORGAN U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT JU D GE 4 5 R. Doc. 114 at 4, 24– 25. See generally R. Doc. 114.
]]>
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.
