Watkins v. Carline et al

Filing 12

ORDER granting 10 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction/Motion for Summary Judgment. Party United States of America dismissed. Signed by Chief Judge Sarah S. Vance on 11/27/2013. (mmm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CHERRYL WATKINS

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 13-5528

JOSEPH CARLINE, ET AL.

SECTION: R

ORDER AND REASONS
Defendant the United States moves to dismiss plaintiff
Cherryl Watkins's complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of
standing.

Alternatively, the United States moves for summary

judgment pursuant to Rule 56.
motion.

Plaintiff has not opposed the

Because plaintiff is not the owner of the damaged

vehicle for which she is seeking damages, the Court GRANTS
defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of standing.

I.

BACKGROUND
On August 3, 2012, plaintiff parked a 2009 Toyota Camry at

the post office in Hammond, LA.1

Another individual named

Marquita Watkins is the titled owner of the vehicle.2

While

Cherryl Watkins was inside the post office, an edger operated by
postal employee Joseph Carline caused a projectile to strike and

1

R. Doc. 10-4 at 7-8.

2

Id. at 5.

shatter the rear driver's side window of the vehicle.3
Cherryl Watkins submitted an SF-95 tort claim to the Postal
Service for $1,454.53 in property damage and loss of use.4
Because Cherryl Watkins was not the owner of the vehicle, the
Postal Service denied the claim.5

Marquita Watkins then

submitted a claim in her own name for the same amount.6

The

parties were unable to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution,
and the Postal Service again denied the claim.7
On July 24, 2012, Cherryl Watkins sued Joseph Carline in his
individual capacity in the City Court of Hammond, Seventh Ward,
Tangipahoa Parish.8

She seeks $1,578.83 in property damage and

"aggravation and inconvenience."9

The United States certified

Carline's scope of federal employment at the time of the alleged
tortious act and removed the case to this Court under the Federal
Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(2).10

It now moves to

dismiss plaintiff's claim for lack of standing since plaintiff is

3

Id. at 8.

4

Id. at 3-4.

5

Id. at 9.

6

Id. at 10.

7

Id. at 11.

8

R. Doc. 1-1.

9

Id. at 2, 17.

10

R. Doc. 1.
2

not the owner of the vehicle in question.11

Plaintiff does not

oppose the motion.

II.

LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) governs challenges

to a court's subject matter jurisdiction.

"A case is properly

dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when the court
lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the
case." Home Builders Ass'n of Miss., Inc. v. City of Madison, 143
F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting Nowak v. Ironworkers
Local 6 Pension Fund, 81 F.3d 1182, 1187 (2d Cir. 1996)).
"Courts may dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on
any one of three bases: (1) the complaint alone; (2) the
complaint supplemented by undisputed facts in the record; or (3)
the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court's
resolution of disputed facts."

Clark v. Tarrant County, 798 F.2d

736, 741 (5th Cir. 1986) (citing Williamson v. Tucker, 645 F.2d
404, 413 (5th Cir. 1981)). Furthermore, plaintiff bears the
burden of demonstrating that subject matter jurisdiction exists.
See Paterson v. Weinberger, 644 F.2d 521, 523 (5th Cir. 1981).
When examining a factual challenge to subject matter
jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), which does not implicate the
merits of plaintiff's cause of action, the district court has
11

R. Doc. 10.
3

substantial authority to weigh the evidence and satisfy itself as
to the existence of its power to hear the case. See Garcia v.
Copenhaver, Bell & Assocs., 104 F.3d 1256, 1261 (11th Cir. 1997).
See also Clark, 798 F.2d at 741.

Accordingly, the court may

consider matters outside the pleadings, such as testimony and
affidavits. See Garcia, 104 F.3d at 1261. Moreover, a court's
dismissal of a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is
not a decision on the merits, and the dismissal does not prevent
the plaintiff from pursuing the claim in another forum.

See Hitt

v. City of Pasadena, 561 F.2d 606, 608 (5th Cir. 1977).

III. DISCUSSION
The question of standing involves whether the litigant is
entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute.
Courts have recognized a limitation on the class of persons who
may invoke federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Individual

standing in a private suit requires the person invoking the
court's authority to show that he personally suffered actual or
threatened injury, that the injury can be fairly traceable to the
challenged action, and the court would be likely to address the
injury by a favorable decision.

See Save Our Community v. U.S.

Envtl. Protection Agency, 971 F.2d 1155 (5th Cir. 1992).
Apart from the constitutional limitations to standing, the
courts have generally prescribed prudential standing barriers.
4

One such non-constitutional prudential limitation is the
prohibition against third party standing.

Generally, a plaintiff

must assert his own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest
his claim to relief on the legal interests of third parties.

See

Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975). See also United Food
and Commercial Workers v. Brown Group, 517 U.S. 544, 557 (1996)
(discussing the bar against third-party standing as prudential).
In Stepter v. Verele, CIV.A. 10-1799, 2011 WL 2462023 (E.D.
La. June 20, 2011) (Berrigan, J.), another judge of this Court
held that a plaintiff lacked standing to sue for damage to a
vehicle of which her father was the titled owner.

This

conclusion comports with the general principle that without proof
of ownership, a plaintiff lacks standing to sue for damages to
the property.

See, e.g., Ekberg. v. United States, 117 F.3d

1428, at *1 (10th Cir. 1997) (unpublished) (holding that nonowner of private land lacked standing to sue government for
breach of contract and fraud due to government's alleged failure
to complete and exchange of private land for government land);
Kelly v. Porter, Inc., 687 F.Supp.2d 632, 635-37 (E.D. La. 2010)
(holding that individual lacked standing to sue for damages to
vessel owned by limited liability corporation, even though
individual was sole owner of all stock in the corporation); Rolle
v. West, 642 F.Supp.2d 1307, 1309 (N.D. Fla. 2009) (holding that
non-owner of home lacked standing to sue for damage to door of

5

home during search by law enforcement officers).
Accordingly, the Court determines that plaintiff, as a nonowner of the vehicle, lacks standing to sue for any damages
caused to it as well as for loss of its use.

See Kelly, 687

F.Supp.2d at 634-637 (denying claims for both damages and loss of
use for lack of standing); LeVake v. Zawitowski, CIV.A. 02-0657,
2003 WL 23200367, at *4 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 10, 2003) (no standing to
bring common-law nuisance claim for loss of use of land not owned
by plaintiffs).

IV.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS defendants'

motion to dismiss for lack of standing.

27th
New Orleans, Louisiana, this ___ day of November, 2013.
_____________________________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6