Lemoine et al v. Wolfe et al
ORDER and REASONS denying 117 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, as stated within document. Signed by Chief Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 5/26/2016. (cbs)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SCOTT D. LEMOINE, ET AL
ELIZABETH P. WOLFE, ET AL
Flag Section “C”
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is defendant Elizabeth Wolfe’s motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction. Rec. Doc. 117. Plaintiff Scott D. Lemoine opposes the motion. Rec. Doc. 126. After
considering the record, the memoranda of the parties, and the applicable law, the Court denies
The Court finds it appropriate to state only the factual and procedural background
pertinent to the current motion. The case was filed in June 2011, with plaintiff alleging that
defendant––a sitting state court judge––wrongfully caused the arrest of plaintiff and also
wrongfully caused excessive bond to be set for plaintiff’s release from custody following his
arrest. See Rec. Doc. 1 at 7–8, 10–11. Furthermore, plaintiff alleges that defendant’s wrongful
actions caused plaintiff’s federal supervised release to be revoked, with the result of plaintiff
being wrongfully incarcerated for a total of nearly ten months. See id. at 13–16. Plaintiff alleges
that, even upon release from federal custody, plaintiff’s conditional discharge was continued
indefinitely. See id. at 16. Plaintiff’s initial complaint stated both federal and state claims, with
plaintiff alleging federal question jurisdiction over the federal claims and both supplemental and
diversity jurisdiction over the state claims. See id. at 3–4.
The Court, Judge Berrigan presiding, dismissed all of plaintiff’s claims against defendant
on summary judgment in December 2012. See Rec. Doc. 89. Following two separate decisions of
the Fifth Circuit and an answer to a certified question by the Louisiana Supreme Court, the case
is now back before the Court for further proceedings on plaintiff’s state-law malicious
prosecution claim against defendant. See Rec. Doc. 104 (Fifth Circuit order reversing and
remanding case for further proceedings); see also Lemoine v. Wolfe, 575 Fed. Appx. 449 (5th
Cir. 2014) (per curiam); 2014–CQ–1546 (La. 3/17/15); 168 So.3d 362.
Defendant now moves for the Court to dismiss plaintiff’s state-law malicious prosecution
claim, contending it is no longer appropriate for the Court to continue exercising supplemental
jurisdiction and because diversity jurisdiction did not exist at the time plaintiff filed his
complaint. See Rec. Doc. 117. 1
II. Arguments of the Parties
In support of their motion to dismiss, defendants contend that plaintiff’s complaint––
which does not allege a specific amount in controversy––does not support the existence of the
minimum amount in controversy necessary for the Court to exercise diversity jurisdiction. See
Rec. Doc. 117-1. Contending that plaintiff’s alleged damages are limited to nineteen days spent
in jail, defendant cites to Louisiana case law indicating that plaintiffs suffering similar damages
have not recovered over $75,000. Id. at 3–5. Furthermore, defendant contends that supplemental
jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state claims is no longer appropriate, emphasizing that all federal
claims have been dismissed and that plaintiff’s claim involves novel issues of state law as
evidenced by the Louisiana Supreme Court answer to the Fifth Circuit’s certified question in this
The Court notes that the parties do not dispute that diversity of citizenship between the parties exists in this case.
See Rec. Doc. 1 at 2; Rec. Doc. 117-1. Furthermore, it does not appear that the parties dispute that the individual
claims of Beverly Lemoine are no longer pending. See Rec. Docs. 117-1 at 2 (defendant’s statement of the case) &
Rec. Doc. 126 (opposing dismissal and addressing jurisdiction only as to claims of Scott Lemoine).
case. Id. at 5. Defendant contends that requiring plaintiff to bring his claim in state court will not
prejudice plaintiff, will not waste judicial resources, and will serve federalism and comity
interest. Id. at 6.
In opposition, plaintiff contends that the complaint alleged in good faith that the amount
in controversy exceeds $75,000. See Rec. Doc. 126 at 2. Plaintiff contends that the complaint
makes clear that his alleged injuries were not limited to nineteen days in jail, but rather nearly ten
months. Id. at 3. Plaintiff cites to cases he deems to be more analogous to the instant action in
which recovery exceeded $75,000. Id. at 3–4. Plaintiff asserts that a reasonably jury could award
more than $75,000 for the emotional and monetary damages associated with roughly ten months
of wrongful incarceration. Id. at 5.
In addition to diversity jurisdiction being present, plaintiff argues that the Court should
continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction as well. Id. at 6–9. Plaintiff contends the case does
not involve novel issues of state law, given that federal courts regularly litigate malicious
prosecution claims and because the Louisiana Supreme Court’s answer to the Fifth Circuit’s
certified question settled the new issue of state law that had been present. Id. Plaintiff further
contends that the age of this case, multiple federal court rulings already entered, and waste
associated with the plaintiff having to bring his case in state court all weigh in favor of the Court
retaining its supplemental jurisdiction. Finally, plaintiff asserts that the Fifth Circuit’s decisions
on appeal implicitly support the existence of federal jurisdiction, given that the Fifth Circuit did
not question its own jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Id. at 9–10.
The Court concludes that diversity jurisdiction exists in this case and thereby finds it
unnecessary to decide whether to decline the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. It
is apparent from the allegations on the face of plaintiff’s complaint that he seeks to recover
damages for almost ten months of wrongful confinement caused by a sitting state court judge, all
the associated emotional, economical, reputational, and punitive damages associated therewith,
as well as attorneys’ fees 2 associated with defense against criminal prosecution. Under the
applicable legal standard and upon review of the cited case law on malicious prosecution awards,
the Court concludes that the facts alleged by plaintiff sufficiently support that the amount in
controversy in this case exceeds $75,000. See De Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 47 F.3d 1404, 1409 (5th
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s motion (Rec. Doc. 117) is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 26th day of May, 2016.
KURT D. ENGELHARDT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Defendant apparently acknowledges that plaintiff claims that his criminal attorney fees were roughly $25,000. See
Rec. Doc. 117-1 at 5.
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?