Laster v. USAA Insurance Agency

Filing 10

ORDER DISMISSING CASE: The Court dismisses this case without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 1/8/15 (RLW)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
FATHER LASTER
V.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-CV-394-KS-RHW

USAA INSURANCE AGENCY

DEFENDANT
ORDER

On October 27, 2014, Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint, seeking recovery
under an insurance policy for theft of items valued at approximately $13,000.00, and
for “discriminatory behavior” which Plaintiff apparently contends caused $20,000.00
worth of damages. He did not allege the citizenship of the parties or assert any claims
arising under federal law.
On November 10, 2014, the Court entered an order providing the various
elements of federal subject matter jurisdiction, and it ordered Plaintiff to file an
amended complaint which properly alleged the Court’s jurisdiction. The Court also
warned Plaintiff that failure to comply with the Court’s order may result in dismissal
of his case.
On the same day, Plaintiff filed a second Amended Complaint, in which he
stated that he demanded “relief in the amount of $75,000.00.” On November 13, 2014,
Plaintiff filed a response to the Court’s show cause order, stating that he is a resident
of Mississippi and that Defendant “is based in San Antonio, TX liscensed [sic] to do
business in Mississippi.”
On December 3, 2014, the Court entered another order requiring Plaintiff to

show cause on or before December 18, 2014, why this case should not be dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction. The Court warned Plaintiff that failure to respond may result in
dismissal.
On December 18, 2014, Plaintiff filed a response to the Court’s show cause order
in which he once again failed to clearly allege the citizenship of the parties. He also
reiterated that he is “asking for relief in the amount of $75,000.00.”
On December 19, 2014, the Court entered a final show cause order in which it
specifically instructed Plaintiff that allegations of the citizenship of a corporation
“must set forth the state of incorporation as well as the principal place of business of
each corporation.” Harrell v. Yokohama Tire Corp., 2011 WL 1812785, at *6 (S.D. Miss.
May 4, 2011). The Court ordered Plaintiff to respond by January 6, 2014, and warned
him that it was his final opportunity to show cause why the case should not be
dismissed. Plaintiff failed to respond.
This Court has original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and “all civil
actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 . . . and
is between . . . [c]itizens of different states . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (emphasis added).
Plaintiff has not presented a federal question. Therefore, the Court does not
have subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Plaintiff only seeks $75,000.00 in damages. Therefore, the Court does not have
subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Furthermore, “allegations
regarding the citizenship of a corporation must set out the principal place of business
2

as well as the state of incorporation,” Nadler v. Am. Motor Sales Corp., 764 F.2d 409,
413 (5th Cir. 1985), and Plaintiff failed to provide that information.
Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to provide the Court with
sufficient information to determine whether it has jurisdiction over this case. “The
requirement that jurisdiction be established as a threshold matter . . . is inflexible and
without exception.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94-95, 118 S. Ct.
1003, 140 L. Ed. 2d (1998). Accordingly, the Court dismisses this case without
prejudice.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this 8thday of January, 2015.

s/ Keith Starrett
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3