Coleman v. Affordable Care Inc. et al

Filing 32

ORDER AND REASONS that the 22 23 Motions to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure filed by defendants: Affordable Care, Inc.; Affordable Care, LLC; John A. Faller, DDS; and, Dr. Robert Starnes, DDS, A Professio nal Dental Corporation are GRANTED, and plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's 27 Motion to Supplement the Record with the State Court's Judgment of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice is GRANTED as to supplementing the record. The motion is DENIED with respect to finding that the defendants' motions to dismiss are moot. Signed by Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon on 4/4/2018. (cms)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CHARLES T. COLEMAN, DMD

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 17-13015

AFFORDABLE CARE INC., ET AL.

SECTION: "S" (3)

ORDER AND REASONS
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motions to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure filed by defendants: Affordable Care, Inc.; Affordable Care, LLC;
John A. Faller, DDS; and, Dr. Robert Starnes, DDS, A Professional Dental Corporation (Docs. #22
and 23), are GRANTED, and plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement the Record with the
State Court's Judgment of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice (Doc. #27) is GRANTED as to
supplementing the record. The motion is DENIED with respect to finding that the defendants'
motions to dismiss are moot.
BACKGROUND
This matter is before the court on defendants' motions to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff, Charles T. Coleman, DMD, who is a citizen of Louisiana and proceeding pro se,1
filed this action against defendants alleging claims arising under Louisiana law for illegal eviction,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, interruption of business, defamation, breach of contract,
fraud in the inducement, unfair competition, tortious interference with a contract, and illegal practice

1

Because plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court must construe his pleadings liberally. Grant v.
Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995). However, “[t]he right of self-representation does not exempt a
party from compliance with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law. Birl v. Estelle, 660 F.2d 592,
593 (5th Cir. 1981).

of dentistry. Defendants, Affordable Care, Inc.; Affordable Care, LLC; John A. Faller, DDS; and,
Dr. Robert Starnes, DDS, A Professional Dental Corporation, filed a motion to dismiss arguing that
this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because there is not complete diversity of citizenship
between the plaintiff and defendants.2 Faller and Starnes, like Coleman, are citizens of Louisiana.
Coleman argues that he has a right to file suit against the defendants in whatever court he chooses.
ANALYSIS
“Motions filed under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow a party to
challenge the subject matter jurisdiction of the district court to hear a case.” Ramming v. United
States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001). “Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be found in any
one of three instances: (1) the complaint alone; (2) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts
evidenced in the record; or (3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court's
resolution of disputed facts.” Id. In a 12(b)(1) motion, the party asserting jurisdiction bears the
burden of proof that jurisdiction does in fact exists. Id.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, a federal court has original subject matter jurisdiction over
matters alleging state-law claims in which there is complete diversity between the plaintiff and
defendants, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Complete diversity means that all
persons on one side of the controversy must be citizens of different states than all persons on the

2

Defendants also argue that this court should refrain from hearing this case under the Colorado
River Abstention Doctrine because there is a parallel state court proceeding. Coleman filed a motion to
supplement the record in this case with the order entered in the state court proceeding dismissing Coleman's
reconventional demand without prejudice. Coleman argues that the Colorado River abstention doctrine does
not apply because there is no longer a parallel state court proceeding. However, Coleman does not address
defendants' arguments regarding diversity subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

2

other side. McLaughlin v. Miss. Power Co., 376 F.3d 344, 353 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing Harrison v.
Prather, 404 F.2d 267, 272 (5th Cir. 1968)).
Coleman is a citizen of Louisiana. In their motion to dismiss, Faller and Starnes establish
that they are citizens of Louisiana. Thus, there is not complete diversity, and this court lacks
diversity subject matter jurisdiction.
Coleman has filed three motions to amend his complaint. One motion seeks to add claims
arising under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. §
1964, et seq., and the other two motions seek to add additional parties and attach exhibits to the
complaints. A RICO claim falls under this court's federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331, which provides that district courts have original jurisdiction over all civil actions arising
under the laws of the United States. However, a claim made in an "amended complaint cannot be
relied upon to establish subject matter jurisdiction because while a plaintiff may amend a complaint
to cure inadequate jurisdiction allegations, the amendment may not create subject matter jurisdiction
when none exists." In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 342 Fed. Appx. 928, 931 (5th Cir. 2009)
(citing 3 James Wm. Moore, et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 15.1[3],, at 15-34 (3d ed. 1999)
("Essentially, a plaintiff may correct the complaint to show that jurisdiction does in fact exist;
however, if there is no federal jurisdiction, it may not be created by amendment.")). The United
States Court of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit "has specifically held that an amendment may not
remedy a jurisdictional defect by asserting a cause of action to serve as a statutory basis for federal
question jurisdiction." Id. (citing Whitmire v. Victus Ltd., 212 F.3d 885, 888 (5th Cir. 2000)). Thus,
even if Coleman were to be granted leave to file the amended complaint asserting the RICO claim,

3

this civil action must be dismissed because this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the
original complaint. Defendants' motions to dismiss are GRANTED.
CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motions to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure filed by defendants: Affordable Care, Inc.; Affordable Care, LLC;
John A. Faller, DDS; and, Dr. Robert Starnes, DDS, A Professional Dental Corporation (Docs. #22
and 23), are GRANTED, and plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement the Record with the
State Court's Judgment of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice (Doc. #27) is GRANTED as to
supplementing the record. The motion is DENIED with respect to finding that the defendants'
motions to dismiss are moot.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 4th day of April, 2018.
_____

____________________________________
MARY ANN VIAL LEMMON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4