United States of America v. Land et al

Filing 136

ORDER denying 114 Motion for Reconsideration. FURTHER ORDERED that this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims of landowners against the East Jefferson Levee District and the Pontchartrain Levee District. Signed by Judge Helen G. Berrigan on 1/11/12. (Reference: 11-128)(plh, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

CIVIL ACTION
NO:

10-4569

VERSUS
6.17 ACRES OF LAND, MORE or
LESS, SITUATED in PARISH of ST.
CHARLES, STATE OF LOUISIANA
and STATE CHARLES LAND
COMPANY II, L.L.C. et al.

SECTION: “C” (2)

(Master Case)

Applies to 11-0128 Only

c/w
Civil Action No. 11-0128 (Member Case)

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Landowners St. Charles
Land Company II, L.L.C. (“Landowners”) is DENIED. (Rec. Doc. 114). This Court is not
bound by Lonatro, et al. v. Orleans Levee District, et al., 2011 WL 4460187 (E.D. La. Sept. 27,
2011), and the Court’s ruling in its October 27, 2011 Order does not amount to a “manifest error
of law” in the light of Lonatro and the arguments raised in it, as is required for granting a motion
for altering a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) in this context.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction

over the remaining state law claims of Landowners against the East Jefferson Levee District
(“EJLD”) and the Pontchartrain Levee District (“PLD”). The Court may not exercise
discretionary supplemental jurisdiction over these remaining claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367
because this Court found in its October 27, 2011 Order that it did not have original jurisdiction
over Landowners’ claims against the United States, and because the Court is presently declining
to reconsider that decision. That the Court had original jurisdiction over the United States’
eminent domain case (the Master case in this consolidated matter) is of no moment. The Master
case and the Landowners’ case (the Member case) are two distinct cases, as evidenced by the
consolidation order. (Rec. Doc. 12). Landowners argue that this Court has jurisdiction over the
state law claims in the Member case because they arise out of a common nucleus of operative
facts as claims in the Master case. (Rec. Doc. 113) (citing Chicago v. Int’l College of Surgeons,
522 U.S. 156, 165 (1997) (quoting Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966))).
However, the “common nucleus of operative fact” rule applies only where the claims are all part
of the same case or controversy, and Landowners have failed to point to authority extending the
rule to situations such as the one before the Court.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 11th day of January, 2012.
_______________________________________

HELEN G. BERRIGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2