Landrum v. Williamson et al

Filing 25

RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS. The 6 Motion to Dismiss filed by all Defendant's is Granted. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 1/22/2013. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

SUSAN B. LANDRUM
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NUMBER 12-431-SCR
ROBERT RHOM HUTCHINSON, ET AL.
RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS
Before the court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by defendants
Jodi Lee Hutchinson Williamson, Jondalyn Kismet Hutchinson Whitis,
Robert

Rhom

Hutchinson,

document number 6.

and

Howard

Coyt

Hutchinson.

Record

The motion is opposed.1

For the reasons which follow, the defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss is granted.
Background
Plaintiff filed a Complaint seeking possession of certain
movable property from the succession of her mother, Wilda Barnett
Hutchinson (“Mrs. Hutchinson”).
antique

breakfront

cabinet

The property at issue includes an

and

sixteen

pieces

of

artwork.

Plaintiff alleged that the property was a gift to her mother from
her mother’s second husband, Harry Cooper Hutchinson, Jr. (“Mr.
Hutchinson”), who predeceased her mother.

Plaintiff alleged that

when her mother passed away the plaintiff became the rightful heir
of the property because it was part of her mother’s separate
1

Record document number 12.
Defendants
memorandum. Record document number 16.

filed

a

reply

property.
Defendants are the heirs of Mr. Hutchinson who claim that Mrs.
Hutchinson only had usufruct over the property at issue and did not
own it.

Thus, upon her death the property reverted to them as the

heirs of Mr. Hutchinson’s succession.
Defendants moved to dismiss the case arguing that subject
matter

jurisdiction

under

28

U.S.C.

§

1332

does

not

exist.

Specifically, the defendants argued the plaintiff’s complaint
failed to allege damages in excess of the jurisdictional amount of
$75,000. In the alternative, the defendants argued that abstention
is warranted.
Applicable Law
Rule 12(b)(1) Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Under Rule 12(b)(1) Fed.R.Civ.P., a party may move to dismiss
a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The party

asserting jurisdiction has the burden of proving by a preponderance
of the evidence that the court has jurisdiction based on the
complaint and evidence.

Ballew v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 668

F.3d 777, 781 (5th Cir. 2012), citing, Paterson v. Weinberger, 644
F.2d 521, 523 (5th Cir.1981).

“A court may base its disposition

of a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on
the complaint alone, the complaint supplemented by undisputed
facts, or the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the
court's resolution of disputed facts.” Ballew, 668 F.3d at 781,
citing, Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir.

2001).

Whatever the manner of proof, the facts that support

jurisdiction must be judged at the time the complaint is filed.
St. Paul Reinsurance Co. v. Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1252–53 (5th
Cir. 1998).
Abuse of Process
The essential elements of a cause of action for abuse of
process are (1) the existence of an ulterior purpose; and (2) a
wilful act in the use of the process not in the regular prosecution
of the proceeding.

Duboue v. City of New Orleans, 909 F.2d 129,

132 (5th Cir. 1990) (citations omitted); Waguespack, Seago and
Carmichael (A PLC) v. Lincoln, 768 So.2d 287, 290-1, 1999-2016
(La.App. 1 Cir. 9/22/00). Abuse involves misuse of process already
legally issued whereby a party attempts to obtain some result not
proper under law.

Duboue, 909 F.2d at 132, citing,

Succession of

Cutrer v. Curtis, 341 So.2d 1209 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1976).
Analysis
Jurisdictional Amount Has Not Been Established
Because it is not facially apparent from the allegations in
the Complaint that the plaintiff’s claim exceeds $75,000, the
plaintiff must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that
the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

To establish this, the

plaintiff relied on a revised expert report estimating the value of
the breakfront cabinet at $50,000.00 and one painting by an artist

named Rossi at $10,000.00.2

The report also estimated $3,000 in

shipping costs to have the cabinet returned to the plaintiff.

The

maximum net value of these two items, including shipping, is
$63,000. Plaintiff argued that the remainder of the jurisdictional
amount is satisfied by her mental anguish damages and at least
$18,000 in attorneys’ fees recoverable under her abuse of process
claim.3
Even assuming the estimated values provided by the plaintiff’s
expert are accurate,4 the plaintiff still has not shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that she can recover in excess of
$12,000.00 on her remaining claims.
With respect to the plaintiff’s abuse of process claim, the
plaintiff’s Complaint fails to allege facts that could support
recovery under Louisiana law.
is

based

on

Hutchinson’s

the

claim

succession,

filed

Plaintiff’s abuse of process claim
by

the

defendants

against

through

its

executrix,

to

Mrs.

obtain

a

declaration of ownership and possession of the property at issue,

2

Record document number 12, Exhibits P-10, P-10A, P-10B, and

P-10C.
3

Record document number 1, Complaint, ¶ 49. The complaint
does not assert mental anguish damages but the plaintiff does seek
damages for loss of use and enjoyment. See, ¶ 51. For purposes of
this ruling, these damages will be considered as equivalent.
4

Defendants offered evidence to show that the value of the
cabinet and paintings is far less than $75,000. Record document
number 6-3, Exhibits 1 - 1(C); record document number 16-1,
Exhibits 6 - 6(D). If this were a motion for summary judgment, the
plaintiff would fail to show that there is no genuine that the
value of the cabinet and paintings is more than $75,000.

and

then

failing

proceeding.

to

join

the

plaintiff

as

a

party

in

that

Plaintiff alleged that prior to the hearing on the

defendants’ claim, the executrix donated the property at issue to
the plaintiff.

Plaintiff alleged that the state district court

judge and the defendants wrongly proceeded with a hearing on the
defendants’ claim after they were informed that the executrix was
no longer the proper party and that the defendants’ claim should be
adjudicated against the plaintiff.

The property at issue was

awarded to the defendants despite the failure to join the plaintiff
to the claim.
Plaintiff’s abuse of process claim fails as a matter of law
because she did not alleged any facts in her Complaint which, if
true,

establish

purpose.

that

the

defendants’

acted

with

an

ulterior

Plaintiff’s reliance on the defendants’ decision to

proceeded with the hearing despite their knowledge of potential
procedural
misplaced.

problems

with

a

ruling

from

the

state

court

is

While the state court ruling was later reversed on

appeal for failing to join the plaintiff as a party, this does not
establish an ulterior purpose.

Defendants’ only alleged objective

for their claim in the succession was to obtain ownership and
possession of the property at issue, and this was plainly the
purpose of the state court hearing.

The Complaint is devoid of

allegations that the defendants attempted to obtain a different
result, i.e. that they had some different purpose which was
improper under the law.

Because the plaintiff cannot prevail on

her abuse of process claim under Louisiana law, attorneys’ fees
cannot be included in the amount in controversy.
Although the plaintiff alleged she suffered mental anguish,
she neither alleged nor provided any factual basis to suggest that
such damages could exceed $12,000.00.

Defendants’ valuations of

the remaining items identified in the plaintiff’s Complaint were
nominal and uncontested by the plaintiff, and collectively cannot
provide the remainder of the necessary amount in controversy.
Conclusion
Plaintiff has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence
that the amount in controversy required for diversity jurisdiction
is present.

Because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction

over the plaintiff’s claims, the defendants’ arguments concerning
abstention do not need to be addressed.
Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss filed by defendants Jodi
Lee Hutchinson Williamson, Jondalyn Kismet Hutchinson Whitis,
Robert Rhom Hutchinson, and Howard Coyt Hutchinson is granted.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, January 22, 2013.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE