Valdery v. Louisiana Workforce Commission et al, No. 2:2015cv01547 - Document 7 (E.D. La. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS granting 5 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Signed by Chief Judge Sarah S. Vance on 9/10/15. (jjs)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Valdery v. Louisiana Workforce Commission et al Doc. 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA GISELLE VALDERY CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 15-0 1547 SECTION: R(5) LOUISIANA WORKFORCE COMMISSION, and PENELOPE PALERMO ORD ER AN D REASON S Defendants Louisiana Workforce Com m ission and Penelope Palerm o, m ove to dism iss plaintiff’s com plaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Because the Eleventh Am endm ent bars plaintiff’s suit, the Court grants the m otion. I. BACKGROU N D On May 7, 20 15, pro se plaintiff Giselle Valdery sued the Louisiana Workforce Com m ission and Penelope Palerm o, a form er Adm inistrative Law J udge for the Com m ission’s Office of Unem ploym ent Adm inistration.1 Valdery alleges that defendants unlawfully denied her unem ploym ent benefits because the Com m ission determ ined that it had overpaid her.2 Valdery further alleges that defendants unlawfully denied her appeal of the Com m ission’s 1 R. Doc. 1. 2 Id. at 1. Dockets.Justia.com decision.3 Valdery seeks to recover all unem ploym ent benefits withheld from her, as well as dam ages for her alleged em otional distress. 4 On J une 25, 20 15, defendants m oved to dism iss Valdery’s com plaint for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), and for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).5 Am ong other argum ents, defendants contend that the Eleventh Am endm ent bars this suit.6 Valdery does not oppose the m otion. II. LEGAL STAN D ARD Under Rule 12(b)(1), “[a] case is properly dism issed for lack of subject m atter jurisdiction when the court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case.” Hom e Builders Ass’n of Miss., Inc. v. City of Madison, 143 F.3d 10 0 6, 10 10 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting N ow ak v. Ironw orkers Local 6 Pension Fund, 81 F.3d 1182, 1187 (2d Cir. 1996)). In ruling on a Rule 12(b)(1) m otion to dism iss, the Court m ay rely on (1) the com plaint alone, presum ing the allegations to be true; (2) the com plaint supplem ented by undisputed facts; or (3) the com plaint supplem ented by undisputed facts and the court’s resolution of disputed facts. Den Norske Stats Ojeselskap As v. HeereMac 3 Id. at 1-2. 4 Id. at 2. 5 R. Doc. 5-1 at 2, 7. 6 Id. at 3-4. 2 Vof, 241 F.3d 420 , 424 (5th Cir. 20 0 1); see also Barrera– Montenegro v. United States, 74 F.3d 657, 659 (5th Cir. 1996). The party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing that the district court possesses jurisdiction. Ram m ing v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir.20 0 1). When, as here, grounds for dism issal m ay exist under both Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6), the Court should, if necessary, dism iss only under the form er without reaching the question of failure to state a claim . See Hitt v. City of Pasadena, 561 F.2d 60 6, 60 8 (5th Cir. 1977). A court’s dism issal for lack of subject m atter jurisdiction is not a decision on the m erits and does not prevent the plaintiff from pursuing the claim in another forum . See id. Because the Court finds that plaintiff's claim m ust be dism issed under Rule 12(b)(1), it does not address the legal standard for dism issal under Rule 12(b)(6). III. D ISCU SSION The Eleventh Am endm ent grants states, as well as state agencies, im m unity from suits in federal court filed by its own citizens or citizens of another state. See U.S. Const. am end. XI; Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderm an, 465 U.S. 89, 10 0 (1984) (citations omitted); Cozzo v. Tangipahoa Parish Counsel– President Gov’t, 279 F.3d 273, 280 (5th Cir. 20 0 2) (citation om itted). “When a state agency is the nam ed defendant, the Eleventh 3 Am endm ent bars suits for both m oney dam ages and injunctive relief unless the state has waived its im m unity.” Cozzo, 279 F.3d at 280 -81 (citing Puerto Rico Aquaduct & Sew er Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy , Inc., 50 6 U.S. 139, 144 (1993)). Louisiana has statutorily refused to waive its Eleventh Am endm ent sovereign im m unity against suits in federal courts. See La. Rev. Stat. § 13:510 6(A); Cozzo, 279 F.3d at 281. Here, Valdery sued the Louisiana Workforce Com m ission, an adm inistrative agency of the State of Louisiana, see La. R. S. § 23:1, and Palerm o, in her official capacity as a form er adm inistrative law judge for the Com m ission. Courts consider the Louisiana Workforce Com m ission to be an arm of the state for purposes of Eleventh Am endm ent im m unity. See Chaney v. La. W orkforce Com m ’n, 560 F. App’x 417, 418 (5th Cir. 20 14). The Com m ission and Palerm o are thus im m une from liability for Valdery’s claim for m onetary dam ages. See id. (holding state agencies and agency officials who have been sued in their official capacities are im m une from suit). Because Valdery’s suit is not excepted from Eleventh Am endm ent sovereign im m unity, Valdery’s claim m ust be dism issed. IV. LEAVE TO AMEN D The Court should “freely give” leave to am end “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) (2); Leal v. McHugh, 731 F.3d 40 5, 417 (5th Cir. 20 13). 4 Ordinarily, “a court should grant a pro se party every reasonable opportunity to am end.” Hale v. King, 642 F.3d 492, 50 3 n.36 (5th Cir 20 11) (quoting Pena v. United States, 157 F.3d 984, 987 n.3 (5th Cir. 1988)). When it is apparent, however, that am endm ent will be futile, dism issal without leave to am end is appropriate. Fom an v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Sm ith v. EMC Corp., 393 F.3d 590 , 595 (5th Cir. 20 0 4). It is apparent from the record in this case that am endm ent will be futile. Valdery seeks only m onetary dam ages against both the Com m ission and Palerm o, a result barred by the Eleventh Am endm ent. Moreover, Valdery has not even responded to this m otion. Accordingly, leave to am end is not warranted. V. CON CLU SION For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS defendants Louisiana Workforce Com m ission and Penelope Palerm o’s Motion to Dism iss the case for lack of jurisdiction. New Orleans, Louisiana, this _ _10th _ _ day of Septem ber, 20 15. ___ ___________________________________ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE 5
]]>
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.
