Payton v. Touro Infirmary Hospital et al, No. 2:2019cv11147 - Document 20 (E.D. La. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS granting 14 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; 19 Motion to Dismiss. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Douglas N. Lurie, Touro Infirmary Hospital, and Touro at Home are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 9/25/2019. (sbs)
Download PDF
Payton v. Touro Infirmary Hospital et al Doc. 20 U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT COU RT EASTERN D ISTRICT OF LOU ISIAN A GAYL TH ERESE PAYTON , Plain tiff CIVIL ACTION VERSU S N O. 19 -1114 7 TOU RO IN FIRMARY H OSPITAL, ET AL. D e fe n d an ts SECTION : “E” ( 4 ) ORD ER AN D REAS ON S Before the Court are two m otions to dism iss filed by Defendant Douglas N. Lurie 1 and Defendants Touro Infirm ary Hospital and Touro at Hom e 2 pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff opposed Defendant Lurie’s m otion. 3 For the following reasons, Defendants’ m otions are GRAN TED . BACKGROU N D Plaintiff Gayl Therese Payton alleges Defendants were negligent in treating her knee on May 25, 20 15, and failing to diagnose an infection following her knee replacem ent procedure. 4 Plaintiff asserts the basis for this Court’s jurisdiction is diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 5 In her com plaint, Plaintiff provides her residential address in New Orleans, Louisiana an d asserts she is a citizen of Louisiana. 6 Plaintiff further alleges Defendants are incorporated under the laws of Louisiana and have their principal place of business in Louisiana. 7 Plaintiff provides a New Orleans, Louisiana address for Dr. Lurie. 8 1 R. Doc. 14. R. Doc. 19. 3 R. Doc. 16. 4 R. Doc. 1, at 4. 5 Id. at 3. 6 Id. at 1, 3. 7 Id. at 3. 8 R. Doc. 1-3. 2 1 LEGAL STAN D ARD “Federal courts are courts of lim ited jurisdiction; without jurisdiction conferred by statute, they lack the power to adjudicate claim s.”9 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, federal district courts have original jurisdiction over all civil m atters in which the plaintiffs are citizen s of different states from the defendants and the am ount in controversy exceeds $ 75,0 0 0 . 10 A m otion to dism iss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) challenges a federal court’s subject-m atter jurisdiction. 11 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.”12 The party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing that the district court possesses subject-m atter jurisdiction. 13 LAW AN D AN ALYSIS Plaintiff in this case has failed to establish this Court has subject-m atter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. The citizenship of Plaintiff is not different from the citizenship of all of Defendants—Plaintiff’s com plaint states she is a Louisian a citizen and all Defendants are Louisiana citizens. 14 Accordingly, the com plete diversity requirem ent of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 is not satisfied, and the Court lacks statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case. Further, the Court will not grant Plaintiff leave to am end her com plaint because such leave would be futile. 15 Plaintiff has not 9 In re FEMA Trailer Form aldehy de Prods. Liab. Litig. (Mississippi Plaintiffs), 668 F.3d 281, 286 (5th Cir. 20 12). 10 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 11 See F ED . R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1). 12 Hom e Builders Ass’n of Miss., Inc. v. City of Madison, Miss., 143 F.3d 10 0 6, 10 10 (5th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation m arks and citation om itted). 13 Ram m ing v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 20 0 1). 14 R. Doc. 1, at 3. 15 Helm s v . Speartex Grain Co., 983 F.2d 232 (5th Cir. 1993) (“Although ‘[t]he policy of the federal rules is to perm it liberal am endm ent to facilitate determ ination of claim s on the m erits and to prevent litigation from becom in g a techn ical exercise,’ a court need not grant a m otion to am end if the am endm ent will not 2 alleged an y other basis for jurisdiction, and it would be im possible for her to am end her com plaint to establish diversity of citizenship. CON CLU SION IT IS ORD ERED that the Defendants’ m otions to dism iss for lack of subject m atter jurisdiction are GRAN TED . 16 IT IS FU RTH ER ORD ERED that Plaintiff’s claim s against Defendants Douglas N. Lurie, Defendants Touro Infirm ary Hospital, and Touro at Hom e are D ISMISSED W ITH OU T PREJU D ICE. N e w Orle a n s , Lo u is ian a, th is 2 5th d ay o f Se p te m be r, 2 0 19 . __________ __ ________ _________ SU SIE MORGAN U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT J U D GE cure the deficiencies of the com plaint.” (quoting Dussouy v. Gulf Coast Inv . Corp., 660 F.2d 594, 598 (5th Cir. 1981)). 16 R. Doc 14; R. Doc. 19. 3