Arena v. Graybar Elec. Co., Inc.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1341
5th Cir.2012Background
- Arena contracted to perform roofing for Fort Polk project; no written contract with Graybar or Stevens; Graybar principal contractor, Stevens sub-contractor; Arena unpaid for work performed.
- Miller Act claim dismissed at trial for failure to secure a payment bond; district court proceeded on state-law contract claims and exercised pendent jurisdiction over them.
- Arena amended post-judgment to allege diversity existed at the time of the original complaint.
- Issue of federal jurisdiction centered on whether lack of bond defeats Miller Act jurisdiction and whether supplemental/diversity jurisdiction could cover state claims.
- District court allowed the diversity amendment and rejected the jurisdictional challenge; new evidence on Arena’s residency was not reviewed on appeal.
- Fifth Circuit vacates and remands to determine if jurisdiction ever existed, noting bond was required and new evidence must be evaluated by the district court
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does absence of a Miller Act bond defeat federal question jurisdiction? | Arena argues supplemental jurisdiction can cover state claims after Miller Act dismissal. | Graybar/Stevens contend no federal question remains without a bond and no jurisdiction exists. | No jurisdiction; Miller Act bond required to support federal question jurisdiction. |
| Was supplemental jurisdiction proper over state-law claims after Miller Act claim was dismissed? | The district court could exercise supplemental jurisdiction given common facts. | Without a valid federal claim, no supplemental jurisdiction can attach. | Improper to exercise supplemental jurisdiction without a surviving federal claim. |
| Was the post-judgment amendment to assert diversity proper? | Amendment permitted to cure jurisdictional defects under 28 U.S.C. § 1653. | Amendment cannot create jurisdiction where none existed at filing. | Amendment could not retroactively create jurisdiction; diversity burden remains unresolved. |
| Can new evidence (Louisiana voter registration) be reviewed on appeal to challenge diversity? | New evidence should be considered to determine diversity. | New evidence was not properly considered; must be evaluated by district court. | District court must review authenticity and effect of new evidence on diversity. |
Key Cases Cited
- American Bank v. CIT Construction Co. of Tex., 944 F.2d 253 (5th Cir.1991) (express statutory jurisdiction over bond actions; time Barred Miller Act claim; remand for pendent jurisdiction review)
- Fidelity and Deposit Co. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 813 F.2d 699 (1st Cir.1987) (bond requirement for Miller Act jurisdiction; time limitations discussed)
- Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567 (2004) (post-filing jurisdictional challenge may be raised; cannot cure jurisdiction via later citizenship change)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (2005) (jurisdiction requires at least one valid federal claim to support supplemental jurisdiction)
- Int’l College of Surgeons v. City of Chicago, 522 U.S. 156 (1997) (state claims derive from a common nucleus of operative fact with federal claim)
- Hart v. Bayer Corp., 199 F.3d 239 (5th Cir.2000) (federal question jurisdiction concepts cited)