Brown v. Wen et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 7 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 7 Motion to Have City Marshall Serve Documents. Plaintiff did not provide a proposed amended complaint, and she did not set forth a short and plain statement of a plausible claim agai nst the proposed new defendants, as is required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the motion is denied to the extent Plaintiff seeks to add new defendants. Plaintiff also asks that the marshal serve her summons documents to the d efendants. That request is also denied, but it will be reconsidered if Plaintiff can establish that the court has jurisdiction over her claims. Plaintiff will be allowed until March 21, 2025 to file an amended complaint that sets forth the basis for federal court jurisdiction. See Memorandum Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark L Hornsby on 3/6/2025. (crt,Keller, J)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION
MELL BROWN

CIVIL ACTION NO. 24-cv-1770

VERSUS

JUDGE S. MAURICE HICKS, JR.

LIU WEN ET AL

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY
MEMORANDUM ORDER

Mell Brown (“Plaintiff”), who is self-represented, filed this civil action against three
defendants based on allegations that defendant Dr. Liu Wen prescribed a blood pressure
medicine, Losartan, which caused Plaintiff serious side effects. Plaintiff alleged that she
later learned that Losartan “was on recall for causing damage to those were taking it.”
Plaintiff named as defendants Dr. Liu Wen, Walgreens Co., and Jill Bosch.
The court issued an order that reminded Plaintiff of her obligation to timely serve
the complaint. Plaintiff has now filed a letter that was docketed as a Motion to Amend
Complaint and for Marshal to Serve Documents (Doc. 7). Plaintiff wrote in the letter
that she would like to add Milan Kawawadia and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories “to my case to
which I believe produce and sell Losartan and may have shipped product to Walgreens” on
Greenwood Road. Plaintiff did not provide a proposed amended complaint, and she did
not set forth a short and plain statement of a plausible claim against the proposed new
defendants, as is required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the motion
is denied to the extent Plaintiff seeks to add new defendants.

Plaintiff also asks that the marshal serve her summons documents to the defendants.
That request is also denied, but it will be reconsidered if Plaintiff can establish that the
court has jurisdiction over her claims.
Federal courts have limited jurisdiction to hear only certain kinds of cases, and the
burden is on the person who brings the suit to federal court to show that jurisdiction exists.
Plaintiff’s complaint alleges claims of negligence or medical malpractice, which are based
on state law. A federal court may hear state law claims only in limited circumstances, such
as when the plaintiff is a citizen of a different state than all of the defendants and the amount
in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Plaintiff lists a Shreveport address, so presumably she is a citizen of Louisiana. Her
complaint does not allege the citizenship of any of the three named defendants, but there
is a significant likelihood that one or both of the individual defendants are also citizens of
Louisiana.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a complaint contain “a short and
plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction.” Plaintiff will be allowed until
March 21, 2025 to file an amended complaint that sets forth the basis for federal court
jurisdiction. If she relies on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332, she must (1) allege
that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and (2) allege the citizenship of each party.
For an individual, that is the state in which they are domiciled. For a corporation, it is (1)
the state in which it was incorporated and (2) the state where it has its principal place of
business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).

Page 2 of 3

If any defendant shares Plaintiff’s Louisiana citizenship, then the court will lack
diversity jurisdiction. If that is the case, then the court will have to dismiss this civil action,
and Plaintiff likely should have pursued her claims in a state court. The court will review
the record after the deadline to comply with this order and assess whether Plaintiff has met
her burden of establishing a basis for federal court jurisdiction. Plaintiff may also elect to
notify the court in writing that she wishes to dismiss this federal action without prejudice
so that she may pursue her claims in a state court.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Shreveport, Louisiana, this 6th day of March, 2025.

Page 3 of 3