Dowdle v. MSE Construction et al
Filing
100
ORDER AND REASONS denying 89 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Helen G. Berrigan on 07/21/2014. (kac)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ANTHONY DOWDLE
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 13‐498
MSE CONSTRUCTION,
MSE BUILDING CO., INC.,
GARY COFER, ET AL
SECTION ʺCʺ (5)
ORDER AND REASONS
This matter comes before the Court on motion to dismiss for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction filed by the defendant MSE Building Co., Inc. Rec. Doc. 89. Having
considered the record, the memoranda of counsel and the law, the Court rules as
follows.
The plaintiff, Anthony Dowdle (ʺDowdleʺ) an African‐American male, filed this
suit pro se claiming damages under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e for
racial discrimination and hostile work environment. Rec. Doc. 3 at pp. 2‐3. Remaining
as defendants are MSE Construction and MSE Building Co., Inc. The Court previously
denied a motion to dismiss filed by these remaining defendants finding, in part, that the
plaintiff ʺpleads enough facts to allege that he had an employment relationship with
MSE,ʺ referring to the two defendants collectively. Rec. Docs. 7, 15 at 8. Thereafter,
MSE Building Co., Inc., moved to file an amended and superceding answer, removing
any reference to ʺMSE Constructionʺ from its previously‐filed answer. Rec. Docs. 22, 16.
No opposition to that motion was filed by the plaintiff and the amendment was
allowed. Rec. Doc. 40. In this motion, MSE Building Co., Inc. seeks dismissal for a lack
of subject matter jurisdiction because it was not named in the plaintiffʹs EEOC
complaint as required under Title VII.
In order to prevail on a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), the mover must show it is certain that the plaintiff can
prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief. Home
Builders Assʹn of Mississippi, Inc. v. City of Madison, Mississippi, 143 F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th
Cir. 1998). In determining whether the plaintiff has met this burden, the Court must
ʺtake the well‐pled factual allegations of the complaint as true and view them in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff.ʺ Lane v. Halliburton, 529 F.3d 548, 557 (5th Cir. 2008).
Reading the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, it appears to
the Court that the plaintiff has alleged that MSE Construction and MSE Building Co.,
Inc. are a single corporation. Rec. Doc. 3 at 1. The mover, MSE Building Co., Inc. has
not provided any proof as to that issue in this motion. Although the subject matter
jurisdiction of the Court needs to be established, the motion to dismiss based on the
allegations of the complaint must be denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
2
filed by MSE Building Co., Inc. is DENIED. Rec. Doc. 89.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 21st day of July, 2014.
____________________________________
HELEN G. BERRIGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
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?