Jetson v. Woods et al

Filing 39

ORDER GRANTING 18 MOTION to Dismiss, GRANTING 13 MOTION TO DISMISS, GRANTING 16 MOTION to Dismiss, DENYING AS MOOT 12 MOTION to Dismiss, GRANTING 20 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM. (Signed by Judge Gray H. Miller) Parties notified.(rkonieczny)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
JAMES JETSON , JR .,
Plaintiff,
v.
LEE EDWARD WOODS, JR ., et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO . H-12-1393

O RDER OF D ISMISSAL
Pending before the court are five motions to dismiss filed by defendants Harris County, Texas
(“Harris County”); Etoco, L.P. (“Etoco”); Ballard Exploration Company, Inc. (“Ballard”); Atlantic
Richfield Company (“ARCO”); and Equistar Chemicals, L.P. (“Equistar”) (collectively,
“defendants”). See Dkts. 12, 13, 16, 18, & 20. Plaintiff James Jetson Jr.’s (“Jetson”) live complaint
alleges claims against defendants for fraud, forgery, trespass, ejectment, child support, and unpaid
oil and mineral interest royalties, all allegedly arising from a purported wrongful foreclosure of
property in Harris County, Texas “on or around 1969.” Dkt. 34 at 1–3; id. at 3, ¶ 10.1 According
to Jetson’s complaint, he and all of the listed defendants are located in Texas. Id. at 5 (listing a Texas
address for each defendant). Jetson seeks injunctive relief and money damages in the amount of 100
billion dollars. Id. at 3–4.

1

Jetson filed his original complaint in this action on April 30, 2012. Dkt. 1. Defendants responded by filing
the pending motions to dismiss in late May 2012. While the motions were pending, Jetson filed an amended complaint
on July 18, 2012. Dkt. 34. Aside from dropping a potential slander cause of action from the pleading’s caption, the
amended complaint appears substantively identical to the original complaint. Thus, although the defendants’ motions
were directed to the original complaint, the court considers the motions at this time because the grounds for dismissal
apply equally to the amended complaint. Dalfrey v. Boss Hoss Cycles, Inc., 456 F. App’x 329, 331 n.1 (5th Cir. 2011).

1

Defendants raise various grounds for dismissal, but the court first considers whether it has
subject-matter jurisdiction to hear this case. In re FEMA Trailer Formaldehyde Prods. Liab. Litig.,
668 F.3d 281, 286–87 (5th Cir. 2012) (stating the general rule that federal courts should consider a
jurisdictional attack before turning to any attack on the merits). A federal court has subject-matter
jurisdiction over cases arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, or in
cases in which the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, excluding interest and costs, and involves
diversity of citizenship. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. Jetson, as the plaintiff, bears the burden of
establishing subject-matter jurisdiction. FEMA Trailer, 668 F.3d at 286.
Jetson alleges that this court’s subject-matter jurisdiction rests on its diversity jurisdiction.
See Dkt. 34 at 2, ¶ 5. Except in certain circumstances not present here, diversity jurisdiction is proper
only when there is complete diversity of citizenship—a district court cannot exercise diversity
jurisdiction if any plaintiff shares the same citizenship of any defendant. See Corfield v. Dallas Glen
Hills LP, 355 F.3d 853, 857 (5th Cir. 2003) (citing Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267,
267 (1806)). For diversity purposes, a natural person is considered a citizen of the state where he
or she is domiciled, i.e. where the person has a fixed residence with the intent to remain indefinitely.
See Freeman v. Nw. Acceptance Corp., 754 F.2d 553, 555–56 (5th Cir.1985). A corporation is a
“citizen of every State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign
state where it has its principal place of business[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).
Based on plaintiff’s allegations, he is a domiciliary of Texas and at least one defendant is a
citizen of Texas. See Dkt. 34 at 2, ¶ 8; id. at 5; see also Dkt. 16, Ex. 1 at 1–2, ¶ 2 (affirming that
defendant Ballard is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas).

2

Because complete diversity is lacking among Jetson and defendants, this court lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction to hear plaintiff’s state-law claims, and Jetson’s amended complaint should be dismissed.2
Etoco, Ballard, ARCO, and Equistar’s motions to dismiss for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction (Dkts. 13, 16, 18, & 20) are GRANTED, and Jetson’s claims are DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Harris County’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 12) and all other pending
motions are DENIED AS MOOT. The court will enter a separate final judgment consistent with this
opinion.
It is so ORDERED.
Signed at Houston, Texas on August 16, 2012.

___________________________________
Gray H. Miller
United States District Judge

2

Although Jetson does not plead subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the court notes that there
is no conceivable federal claim asserted in Jetson’s live complaint. Dkt. 34. Jetson’s claims include trespass to try title,
wrongful foreclosure, unpaid child support, fraud, forgery, ejectment, and unpaid mineral royalties, none of which
invoke a question of federal law. See Moses v. McCandless, No. 04-cv-212, 2006 WL 887400, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Mar.
28, 2006) (trespass to try title action arises under Texas law); In re Villareal, Adv. No. 08-7001, 2008 WL 717551,
at *8 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Mar. 14, 2008) (Isgur, J.) (wrongful foreclosure is a claim “dictated by state law”); Steele v.
Steele, No. 10-cv-40, 2011 WL 2413400 (E.D. Ky. June 10, 2011) (child support is a state-law issue); United States
v. Evans, 148 F.3d 477, 483 (5th Cir. 1998) (explaining that ordinary fraud is a state-law claim); McMillan v. Miller,
No. 03-cv-420, 2009 WL 4573971, at *2 (E.D. Tenn. Dec. 2, 2009) (“[F]orgery is a claim based upon state law, and
is not a cause of action which entails a federal question.”); Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n v. Elliott, No. 10-cv-1321, 2010
WL 4627833, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 16, 2010) (holding that a forcible detainer or ejectment action for repossession
of real property does not raise an issue of federal law); Adkins v. Dorcheat Land & Timber Co. LLC, No. 07-0749, 2009
WL 1097968, at *3 (W.D. La. Apr. 22, 2009) (mineral rights dispute among private parties is an issue of state law).

3