Leonhard v. Federal Emergency Management Agency et al
Filing
6
OPINION AND ORDER: Court GRANTS 3 Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Judgment is entered in favor of defendant Federal Emergency Management Agency, and defendant United States Department of Homeland Security, and against plaintiff Richard J. Leonhard, who shall take nothing by way of his complaint. Signed by Senior Judge James T Moody on 8/23/2011. (tc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
RICHARD J. LEONHARD,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
FEDERAL EMERGENCY
)
MANAGEMENT AGENCY, and
)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF )
HOMELAND SECURITY,
)
)
Defendants.
)
No. 2:10 CV 215
OPINION and ORDER
On March 29, 2010, plaintiff Richard J. Leonhard filed a pro se law suit in the
Small Claims Division of the Lake Superior Court in Hammond, Indiana, against the
defendants, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”)1 and the United
States Department of Homeland Security (“USDOHS”). Plaintiff alleged that defendants
wrongfully denied insurance coverage for water damage to his ceiling.
Defendants removed the case to this federal district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1442(a)(1), which provides that a civil action commenced in a state court against “[t]he
United States or any agency thereof or any officer” may be removed by the defendants
1
FEMA, as a federal agency or component of the USDOHS, cannot be sued eo
nomine. See F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994) (“Absent a waiver, sovereign
immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit.”). The National Flood
Insurance Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4072, provides that a party may sue the Director of FEMA in his
official capacity to assert claims related to the disallowance or partial disallowance of a
flood insurance claim. Both defendants and this court have proceeded in this case as
though plaintiff sued the Director of FEMA, the proper federal defendant.
“to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the
place wherein it is pending.” Defendants have now moved to dismiss this case for lack
of jurisdiction, arguing that because the state court in which plaintiff originally filed
lacked jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claim, this court also lacks jurisdiction. (DE # 3.)
Plaintiff did not respond, and his time for doing so has long since passed. The motion is
ripe for ruling.
Defendants’ argument has two parts. First, defendants argue that federal courts
have exclusive jurisdiction over claims like plaintiff’s challenging FEMA’s disallowance
of his flood insurance claim. The National Flood Insurance Act (“the Act”) governs
flood insurance policies issued through FEMA, the entity that administers the National
Flood Insurance Program. The Act provides:
. . . [T]he Director shall be authorized to adjust and make payment of any
claims for proved and approved losses covered by flood insurance, and upon
the disallowance by the Director of any such claim, or upon the refusal of the
claimant to accept the amount allowed upon any such claim, the claimant,
within one year after the date of mailing of notice of disallowance or partial
disallowance by the Director, may institute an action against the Director on
such claim in the United States district court for the district in which the
insured property or the major part thereof shall have been situated, and
original exclusive jurisdiction is hereby conferred upon such court to hear
and determine such action without regard to the amount in controversy.
42 U.S.C.A. § 4072 (emphasis added); see also Smith v. National Flood Ins. Program, 796
F.2d 90, 92 (5th Cir.1986) (noting that “[j]urisdiction over [flood insurance] claims
against the [National Flood Insurance] Program is exclusively federal”). Thus,
2
defendant is correct that only a federal district court, not the state court in which
plaintiff first filed this lawsuit, would possess proper jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claim.
Second, defendants argue that, upon removal, this court only acquired the
jurisdiction possessed by the court of origination – in this case, no jurisdiction at all. The
United States Supreme Court has held that “if the state court lacks jurisdiction over the
subject matter or the parties, the federal court acquires none upon removal, even
though the federal court would have had jurisdiction if the suit had originated there.”
Arizona v. Manypenny, 451 U.S. 232, 243 n.17 (1981); see also Edwards v. U.S. Dep’t of
Justice, 43 F.3d 312, 316 (7th Cir. 1994); Reid v. United States, 715 F.2d 1148, 1153 (7th Cir.
1983). In other words, because the state court in which this case originated never had
jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claim to begin with, this court, which acquired this case
through removal, also lacks jurisdiction.
In sum, defendants’ arguments are sound and warrant dismissal. Defendants’
motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (DE # 3) is GRANTED. There being no claims
remaining against any defendants in this case, the clerk is directed to ENTER FINAL
JUDGMENT as follows:
Judgment is entered in favor of defendant Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and defendant United States Department
of Homeland Security, and against plaintiff Richard J.
Leonhard, who shall take nothing by way of his complaint.
SO ORDERED.
Date: August 23, 2011
s/James T. Moody________________
JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?