Ashford v. Aeroframe Services L L C et al

MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

W.D. La.July 27, 2016

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA DIVISION OF LAKE CHARLES MICHAEL ASHFORD * CIVIL ACTION: 2:14-CV-00992 * Plaintiff * * JUDGE MINALDI * VERSUS * * AEROFRAME SERVICES, LLC AND * AVIATION TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. * MAGISTRATE JUDGE KAY Defendants * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * DEFENDANT/CROSS CLAIM DEFENDANT AEROFRAME SERVICES, LLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(b)(1) Respectfully submitted, WILLIAMS FAMILY LAW FIRM, LLC: JOSEPH PAYNE WILLIAMS, SR. (La. Bar # 13508) RICHARD BRAY WILLIAMS (La. Bar # 27688) 162 Jefferson St. Natchitoches, LA 71457 Telephone: (318) 352-6695 Facsimile: (318) 352-6696 jpwpw@cp-tel.net bray@cp-tel.net Attorneys for Defendant/Cross Claim Defendant Aeroframe Services, LLC Case 2:14-cv-00992-PM-KK Document 88 Filed 07/27/16 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 1580 1 NOW INTO COURT comes and appears, through undersigned counsel, Defendant/Cross-Claim Defendant, Aeroframe Services, LLC, who moves this Honorable Court for an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) dismissing the suit brought by Michael Ashford as there is no subject matter jurisdiction over this matter: 1. AEROFRAME SERVICES, LLC, Defendant/Cross Claim Defendant (hereinafter “Aeroframe”) shows that Plaintiff MICHAEL ASHFORD’S claim against Aeroframe does not meet the requirements for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332(a) as the matter in controversy does not, and never has, exceeded the sum or value of $75,000. 2. Aeroframe further shows that requirements for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(1) as it is undisputed that Aeroframe is a Louisiana citizen and Michael Ashford is a Louisiana citizen. 3. Aeroframe seeks an order from this Honorable Court to conduct an evidentiary hearing, and after due proceedings are had, dismiss this matter as clearly there is no basis for subject matter jurisdiction in this Court. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth herein, as well as those set forth in the attached memorandum made part of this Motion, Defendant Aeroframe Services, LLC, respectfully moves this Honorable Court, after due proceedings are had, dismiss this matter without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Case 2:14-cv-00992-PM-KK Document 88 Filed 07/27/16 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 1581 2 Respectfully submitted, WILLIAMS FAMILY LAW FIRM, LLC: s/ Joseph Payne Williams, Sr. JOSEPH PAYNE WILLIAMS, SR. (La. Bar # 13508) RICHARD BRAY WILLIAMS (La. Bar # 27688) 162 Jefferson St. Natchitoches, LA 71457 Telephone: (318) 352-6695 Facsimile: (318) 352-6696 jpwpw@cp-tel.net bray@cp-tel.net Attorneys for Defendant/Cross Claim Defendant Aeroframe Services, LLC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on July 27, 2016, a copy of the foregoing Defendant/Cross Claim Defendant Aeroframe Services, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) was filed electronically with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system. Notice of this filing will be sent to all counsel of record by operation of the court’s electronic filing system. WILLIAMS FAMILY LAW FIRM, LLC: s/ Joseph Payne Williams, Sr. JOSEPH PAYNE WILLIAMS, SR. (La. Bar # 13508) RICHARD BRAY WILLIAMS (La. Bar # 27688) 162 Jefferson St. Natchitoches, LA 71457 Telephone: (318) 352-6695 Facsimile: (318) 352-6696 jpwpw@cp-tel.net bray@cp-tel.net Attorneys for Defendant/Cross Claim Defendant Aeroframe Services, LLC Case 2:14-cv-00992-PM-KK Document 88 Filed 07/27/16 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 1582 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA DIVISION OF LAKE CHARLES MICHAEL ASHFORD * CIVIL ACTION: 2:14-CV-00992 * Plaintiff * * JUDGE MINALDI * VERSUS * * AEROFRAME SERVICES, LLC AND * AVIATION TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. * MAGISTRATE JUDGE KAY Defendants * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * DEFENDANT/CROSS CLAIM DEFENDANT AEROFRAME SERVICES, LLC’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(b)(1) Respectfully submitted, WILLIAMS FAMILY LAW FIRM, LLC: JOSEPH PAYNE WILLIAMS, SR. (La. Bar # 13508) RICHARD BRAY WILLIAMS (La. Bar # 27688) 162 Jefferson St. Natchitoches, LA 71457 Telephone: (318) 352-6695 Facsimile: (318) 352-6696 jpwpw@cp-tel.net bray@cp-tel.net Attorneys for Defendant/Cross Claim Defendant Aeroframe Services, LLC Case 2:14-cv-00992-PM-KK Document 88-1 Filed 07/27/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1583 2 NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel comes AEROFRAME SERVICES, LLC (hereinafter “Aeroframe”), original Defendant/Cross Claim Defendant in the above numbered and entitled cause, who respectfully submits this Memorandum in Support of its Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Pursuant To Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and its attachments as follows: SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION It Is Presumed Federal Courts Lack Jurisdiction The United States Supreme Court has long held that federal courts are presumed not to have jurisdiction. We presume that federal courts lack jurisdiction “unless ‘the contrary appears affirmatively from the record.’ ” Bender v. Williamsport Area School Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 546, 106 S.Ct. 1326, 1334, 89 L.Ed.2d 501 (1986), quoting King Bridge Co. v. Otoe County, 120 U.S. 225, 226, 7 S.Ct. 552, 552, 30 L.Ed. 623 (1887). “ ‘It is the responsibility of the complainant clearly to allege facts demonstrating that he is a proper party to invoke judicial resolution of the dispute and the exercise of the court's remedial powers.’ ” Bender, supra, 475 U.S., at 546, n. 8, 106 S.Ct., at 1334, n. 8, quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 517–518, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 2215, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975). Renne v. Geary, 501 U.S. 312, 316, 111 S. Ct. 2331, 2336, 115 L. Ed. 2d 288 (1991). Diversity Jurisdiction: Complete Diversity Does Not Exist In This Case At the heart of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC 1331 is the rule of complete diversity: diversity jurisdiction is not to be available when any plaintiff is a citizen of the same state as any defendant. The rule mandating complete diversity in order to establish diversity jurisdiction in federal court must be accorded particular deference according to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal in light of its continued application over such a long period of our history as a nation. Case 2:14-cv-00992-PM-KK Document 88-1 Filed 07/27/16 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 1584 3 The rule of Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch (7 U.S.) 267, 2 L.Ed. 435 (1806), bars diversity actions where any defendant is a citizen of the same state as is the plaintiff. This ancient rule rests on the purpose of the original grant of diversity jurisdiction, which seems to have provided a national forum for the protection of out-of-state litigants against bias in favor of state residents. Since the chance of such bias decreases where citizens of one state are on opposing sides of the same lawsuit, the justification for diversity jurisdiction is diminished absent diversity between each plaintiff and each defendant. See C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure s 3605 (1975). The complete diversity requirement is accorded particular deference because of its continued application over such a long period of our history. As the Supreme Court explained in Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 98 S.Ct. 2396, 57 L.Ed.2d 274 (1978): Over the years Congress has repeatedly re-enacted or amended the statute conferring diversity jurisdiction, leaving intact this rule of complete diversity. Whatever may have been the original purposes of diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction, this subsequent history clearly demonstrates a Congressional mandate that diversity jurisdiction is not to be available when any plaintiff is a citizen of the same State as any defendant. 437 U.S. at 373-74 (footnotes omitted). This court too has emphasized the importance of the complete diversity requirement. See, e. g., Fawvor v. Texaco, Inc., 546 F.2d 636, 638-39 (5th Cir. 1977). Powell v. Offshore Nav., Inc., 644 F.2d 1063, 1066 (5th Cir. 1981). As shown by Exhibit A, a certified copy of Aeroframe Services, LLC’s articles of organization from the Louisiana Secretary of State, defendant Aeroframe Services, LLC is a citizen of Louisiana; it is an undisputed and unassailable fact. Furthermore, it is an undisputed and unassailable fact that Plaintiff Michael Ashford is a Louisiana citizen. This should end the factual inquiry to this Rule 12(b)(1) motion as this Honorable Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to enter any order other than a dismissal, much less granting relief to plaintiff Michael Ashford against defendant Aeroframe Services, LLC. Rule 12(h)(3) mandates “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Case 2:14-cv-00992-PM-KK Document 88-1 Filed 07/27/16 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 1585 4 Diversity Jurisdiction: The Amount In Controversy Does Not Exist In This Case It is a legal certainty that Plaintiff Michael Ashford’s claim against Defendant Aeroframe Services, LLC could never reach the amount in controversy. As shown in Exhibit B, Mr. Ashford’s claim, on its best day in court after a trial on the merits, is woefully below the requisite amount. 1 Mr. Ashford’s claim, as shown by Exhibit A, the greatest amount this Honorable Court could award with a legal certainty, is less than half of the amount in controversy jurisdictional requirement. As such, this Honorable Court should grant the instant motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and dismiss this matter as required under Rule 12(h)(3). The sum demanded “in good faith” in the initial pleading is deemed to be the amount in controversy, except that a notice of removal may assert the amount in controversy if the initial pleading seeks a money judgment “but the State practice either does not permit demand for a specific sum or permits recovery of damages in excess of the amount demanded” and the court finds, by the preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2). This statutory language is a recent codification of the long-standing jurisprudential rules that begins with the principle that “unless the law gives a different rule, the sum claimed by the plaintiff controls if the claim is apparently made in good faith.” St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 58 S.Ct. 586, 590 (1938). 1 Aeroframe Services, LLC also does not agree that statutory penalties are owed to Mr. Ashford, even if he can establish he is owed any back owed wages (which Aeroframe has disputed and continues to dispute). It would be inequitable to assess huge statutory penalties against Aeroframe Services, LLC for any alleged failure to pay wages allegedly owed to Mr. Ashford because, as shown in Aeroframe Services, LLC’s mandatory cross claim, any failure on Aeroframe Services, LLC’s part was wholly due to the reprehensible actions of Aviation Technical Services, Inc. in unilaterally breaching the November 8, 2012 contract between the two and using unfair methods of competition and unfair practices against Aeroframe Services, LLC. Aeroframe Services, LLC shows that equitable defenses are allowed against claims like Mr. Ashford’s claim for statutory penalties sought under LSA-R.S. 23:631, et seq. “These statutes are designed to compel prompt payment of wages when an employee is discharged or resigns. Beard, 97–1784 at p. 3, 707 So.2d at 1235. They are penal in nature and must therefore be strictly construed and yield to equitable defenses. Boudreaux v. Hamilton Medical Group, Inc., 94–0879 (La.10/17/94), 644 So.2d 619 (citing Mason v. Norton, 360 So.2d 178, 180 (La.1978)).”Wyatt v. Avoyelles Par. Sch. Bd., 831 So. 2d 906, 912 (La. 2002). Aeroframe Services, LLC shows that Aeroframe Services, LLC also disagrees that the attorney’s fee should be calculated using any amount of statutory penalties as a basis for the award. Case 2:14-cv-00992-PM-KK Document 88-1 Filed 07/27/16 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 1586 5 Police Jury Bossier Par. v. Blueford, No. 15-CV-2157, 2015 WL 9312017, at *1 (W.D. La. Dec. 1, 2015), report and recommendation adopted, No. CV 15-2157, 2015 WL 9307335 (W.D. La. Dec. 21, 2015). CONCLUSION It is axiomatic that the plaintiff and defendant have to be citizens of different states to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts for diversity jurisdiction to apply. It is undisputed that Plaintiff Michael Ashford is a Louisiana citizen. It is undisputed that Defendant Aeroframe Services, LLC is a Louisiana citizen. It is a legal certainty that the amount in controversy is below the jurisdictional threshold. Aeroframe Services, LLC prays this Honorable Court dismiss this matter as it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Respectfully submitted, WILLIAMS FAMILY LAW FIRM, LLC: s/ Joseph Payne Williams, Sr. JOSEPH PAYNE WILLIAMS, SR. (La. Bar # 13508) RICHARD BRAY WILLIAMS (La. Bar # 27688) 162 Jefferson St. Natchitoches, LA 71457 Telephone: (318) 352-6695 Facsimile: (318) 352-6696 jpwpw@cp-tel.net bray@cp-tel.net Attorneys for Defendant/Cross Claim Defendant Aeroframe Services, LLC Case 2:14-cv-00992-PM-KK Document 88-1 Filed 07/27/16 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 1587 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on July 27, 2016, a copy of the foregoing Defendant/Cross Claim Defendant Aeroframe Services, LLC’s Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) was filed electronically with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system. Notice of this filing will be sent to all counsel of record by operation of the court’s electronic filing system. WILLIAMS FAMILY LAW FIRM, LLC: s/ Joseph Payne Williams, Sr. JOSEPH PAYNE WILLIAMS, SR. (La. Bar # 13508) RICHARD BRAY WILLIAMS (La. Bar # 27688) 162 Jefferson St. Natchitoches, LA 71457 Telephone: (318) 352-6695 Facsimile: (318) 352-6696 jpwpw@cp-tel.net bray@cp-tel.net Attorneys for Defendant/Cross Claim Defendant Aeroframe Services, LLC Case 2:14-cv-00992-PM-KK Document 88-1 Filed 07/27/16 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 1588 Case 2:14-cv-00992-PM-KK Document 88-2 Filed 07/27/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1589 Case 2:14-cv-00992-PM-KK Document 88-2 Filed 07/27/16 Page 2 of 11 PageID #: 1590 Case 2:14-cv-00992-PM-KK Document 88-2 Filed 07/27/16 Page 3 of 11 PageID #: 1591 Case 2:14-cv-00992-PM-KK Document 88-2 Filed 07/27/16 Page 4 of 11 PageID #: 1592 Case 2:14-cv-00992-PM-KK Document 88-2 Filed 07/27/16 Page 5 of 11 PageID #: 1593 Case 2:14-cv-00992-PM-KK Document 88-2 Filed 07/27/16 Page 6 of 11 PageID #: 1594 Case 2:14-cv-00992-PM-KK Document 88-2 Filed 07/27/16 Page 7 of 11 PageID #: 1595 Case 2:14-cv-00992-PM-KK Document 88-2 Filed 07/27/16 Page 8 of 11 PageID #: 1596 Case 2:14-cv-00992-PM-KK Document 88-2 Filed 07/27/16 Page 9 of 11 PageID #: 1597 Case 2:14-cv-00992-PM-KK Document 88-2 Filed 07/27/16 Page 10 of 11 PageID #: 1598 Case 2:14-cv-00992-PM-KK Document 88-2 Filed 07/27/16 Page 11 of 11 PageID #: 1599 Case 2:14-cv-00992-PM-KK Document 88-3 Filed 07/27/16 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1600 Case 2:14-cv-00992-PM-KK Document 88-3 Filed 07/27/16 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1601 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA DIVISION OF LAKE CHARLES MICHAEL ASHFORD * CIVIL ACTION: 2:14-CV-00992 * Plaintiff * * JUDGE MINALDI * VERSUS * * AEROFRAME SERVICES, LLC AND * AVIATION TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. * MAGISTRATE JUDGE KAY Defendants * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PROPOSED ORDER Considering Aeroframe Service, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss For Lack Of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Aeroframe Services, LLC’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED and this matter is dismissed without prejudice. THUS DONE AND SIGNED on this ______ day of ________________, 2016. ______________________________ JUDGE MINALDI Case 2:14-cv-00992-PM-KK Document 88-4 Filed 07/27/16 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 1602