Mayeux v. Mayeux
| Decision Date | 03 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 6:20-cv-00092 |
| Parties | JAMES EDWARD MAYEUX, JR. v. BARBARA R. MAYEUX, ET AL. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana |
JAMES EDWARD MAYEUX, JR.
v.
BARBARA R. MAYEUX, ET AL.
Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00092
United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lafayette Division
June 3, 2022
SUMMERHAYS, JUDGE.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
PATRICK J. HANNA, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the standing orders of the court, this Court undertook a sua sponte analysis of subject-matter jurisdiction. Considering the evidence, the law, and the arguments of the parties, and for the reasons fully explained below, it is recommended that this case should be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Background
The plaintiff, James Edward “Jimmy” Mayeux, Jr., filed his original complaint in January 2020, asserting claims against his mother, Barbara Mayeux, his sisters Joey Mayeux Milazzo and Renee Mayeux Bordelon, and his brother, Timothy J. “Timmy” Mayeux. Jimmy alleged that, while he was incapacitated following a stroke, his mother and siblings forged his signature on various documents, fraudulently executed contracts, converted his property, breached contracts, breached fiduciary duties, and engaged in unfair trade practices. In the complaint, Jimmy alleged that the court has subject-matter jurisdiction over his
claims because he is an Alabama citizen while the defendants are Louisiana citizens and the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold of $75,000.
Jimmy filed his first amended complaint in November 2020, adding MYU Family, LLC as a defendant and alleging that he, his mother, and his siblings are all members of that company.[1] In January 2021, Jimmy filed his second amended complaint, which did not add any new defendants.[2] In June 2021, Jimmy filed his third amended complaint, which added two more defendants: MYU Flying Service, LLC and Mayeux Flying Service, LLC.[3]
On August 12, 2021, a hearing was held before this Court regarding a motion to dismiss and a motion to compel, both of which were filed by Jimmy.[4] During the hearing, this Court advised the parties that subject-matter jurisdiction was in doubt. Following the hearing, this Court issued an order requiring the plaintiff to file a brief addressing subject-matter jurisdiction and allowing the defendants an opportunity to respond. The plaintiff complied with the order and filed a responsive brief.[5] No brief was filed by the defendants.
Thereafter, efforts were undertaken to settle the case, and the case was administratively closed for a period of time. The case was reopened on April 14, 2022,[6] and the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction must now be resolved.
Law and Analysis
A. The Standard for Analyzing Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and absent jurisdiction conferred by statute, lack the power to adjudicate claims.”[7] Therefore, any order issued by a federal court lacking subject-matter jurisdiction, except for an order of dismissal or remand, is void.[8] Federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction only over civil actions presenting a federal question[9] and those in which the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs and the parties are citizens of different states.[10] A suit is presumed to lie beyond the scope of federal-court jurisdiction until the party invoking federal-court jurisdiction establishes
otherwise.[11] Thus, the party invoking the court's subject-matter jurisdiction has the burden of establishing the court's jurisdiction.[12] Federal courts may raise the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte at any time[13] and must dismiss an action if subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking.[14]
B. The Parties are Not Diverse in Citizenship
This lawsuit began in federal court; it was not removed to this forum. Accordingly, the plaintiff in this case has the burden of establishing that the court has subject-matter jurisdiction. In his original complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the court has subject-matter jurisdiction under the federal diversity statute. He did not allege any other basis for federal-court jurisdiction in the original complaint, in any amended complaint, or in any other brief or pleading that he subsequently filed. There is no dispute that the amount in controversy in this lawsuit exceeds the statutory minimum. But the plaintiff has not established that the parties to the suit are diverse in citizenship.
The diversity statute requires “complete diversity” of citizenship, meaning that a district court cannot exercise jurisdiction if one of the plaintiffs shares the same state citizenship as any one of the defendants.[15] This requirement was satisfied at the time the original complaint was filed since it is undisputed that Jimmy is an Alabama citizen while the four original defendants are all Louisiana citizens. However, “when a plaintiff files a complaint in federal court and then voluntarily amends the complaint, courts look to the amended complaint to determine jurisdiction.”[16] Therefore, the issue to be resolved is whether diversity was destroyed when Jimmy filed his amended complaints and added three limited liability companies as defendants.
A limited liability company is a citizen of every state in which any member of the company is a citizen,[17] and the citizenship of a limited liability company is determined by the citizenship of all of its members.[18] Therefore, the diversity analysis for a limited liability company requires a determination of the citizenship
of every member of the company. If any one of the members is not diverse, the limited liability company is not diverse.
In his first amended complaint, Jimmy added MYU Family, LLC as a defendant. He alleged that he, his mother, and his siblings are all members of MYU Family, LLC. Thus, MYU Family, LLC is a citizen of both Louisiana and Alabama - the two states where its members are citizens. Because Jimmy is an Alabama citizen, he is not diverse in citizenship from MYU Family, LLC, and complete diversity was destroyed when MYU Family, LLC was made a defendant in this lawsuit. In his jurisdictional brief, however, Jimmy argued that the citizenship of MYU Family, LLC should not be considered in the diversity calculus. First, he argued that MYU Family LLC's citizenship should be disregarded because it is merely a nominal party. Second, he argued that his proposed fourth amended complaint would cure any jurisdictional defects. Third, he argued that his claim against MYU Family, LLC should be severed from the other complaints he asserted. These arguments will be considered in turn.
Jimmy's jurisdictional brief did not address whether the addition of the two flying company defendants destroyed diversity, and this Court is frankly baffled as to why Jimmy ignored these two defendants in his briefing. In the third amended complaint, which added those parties, Jimmy alleged that both of them are limited liability companies, but he did not identify their members. “[W]hen a plaintiff
chooses to sue LLC defendants in federal court, he ‘must specifically allege the citizenship of every member of every LLC.'”[19] Because Jimmy did not identify the members of the two companies or allege the citizenship of the companies' members, this Court is unable to determine whether the companies are diverse in citizenship from the plaintiff. Accordingly, Jimmy has not satisfied his burden of establishing that the court has subject-matter jurisdiction. Although this Court could end its analysis at this point, the arguments presented by the plaintiff in his jurisdictional brief regarding MYU Family, LLC will be addressed as will the applicability of Hensgens v. Deere & Co., a case not mentioned in Jimmy's jurisdictional briefing.
A. Whether MYU Family, LLC's Citizenship Should be Disregarded Because it is a Nominal Party
“In determining diversity jurisdiction, the citizenship of the real parties in interest is determinative, and the citizenship of nominal or formal parties who have no real interest in the dispute before the court may be disregarded.”[20] “[T]he ‘citizens' upon whose diversity a plaintiff grounds jurisdiction must be real and substantial parties to the controversy.”[21] When parties exist that are “directly and
personally concerned in the outcome of the litigation,” they must be considered “real parties in interest,” as opposed to nominal parties, and analyzed in determining diversity jurisdiction.[22] Nominal parties, whose citizenship need not be considered, are generally those without a real interest in the litigation.[23] A party is nominal if a fair and equitable final judgment can be entered without that party in the case.[24]“The question of whether a named defendant is a nominal party depends on the facts in each case.”[25] Practical considerations should be taken into account when determining whether a party is nominal.[26]
Jimmy argued that MYU Family, LLC is a nominal party because the “only perceivable interest of MYU in this case is that a declaratory judgment may reverse a transfer of assets made by the other parties to MYU.”[27] He also argued that MYU is a nominal party because all of its members are...
To continue reading
Request your trial