Forbes v. United Services Automobile Association
2:22-cv-04908
E.D. La.Nov 21, 2023Background
- Plaintiff Alfred Forbes owns property in Ponchatoula, Louisiana allegedly damaged by Hurricane Ida and insured by USAA; he sued USAA in federal court claiming underpayment of claims and seeking > $75,000.
- Complaint invoked diversity jurisdiction, alleging Forbes is a Louisiana citizen and USAA is a Texas citizen.
- Case was filed Dec. 4, 2022; counsel change and a stay were involved—Magistrate Judge North signed an order lifting the stay on Aug. 23, 2023 (entered Aug. 24, 2023).
- USAA filed a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss on Sept. 14, 2023, arguing it is a citizen of all 50 states (including Louisiana), destroying complete diversity.
- Forbes opposed as untimely (motion filed one day after his calculation of the deadline); the Court nonetheless considered the jurisdictional challenge and granted USAA’s motion.
- Result: the Court held it lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction and dismissed the case without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complete diversity exists because of USAA's citizenship | Forbes treated USAA as a Texas citizen, so diversity exists | USAA is a citizen of all 50 states (including Louisiana), so diversity is destroyed | Court held USAA is a citizen of all states for diversity purposes; complete diversity lacking |
| Timeliness of USAA's 12(b)(1) motion | Motion was untimely — filed one day after plaintiff-calculated deadline | The order was entered/served Aug. 24, so USAA’s Sept. 14 filing was timely | Court exercised discretion to consider the motion; timeliness objection did not prevent consideration |
| Whether a jurisdictional defect can be raised at any time | Opposed dismissal on procedural grounds | Jurisdictional challenge may be raised any time because it goes to the court's power | Court noted subject‑matter jurisdiction may be challenged at any time and resolved the issue |
| Remedy if no subject‑matter jurisdiction | Plaintiff urged denial of dismissal | Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction | Court dismissed claims without prejudice for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912 (5th Cir. 2001) (federal courts have limited jurisdiction and principles for assessing it)
- Harvey v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co., 542 F.3d 1077 (5th Cir. 2008) (explaining the complete diversity requirement)
- Stafford v. Mobil Oil Corp., 945 F.2d 803 (5th Cir. 1991) (complaint must specifically allege each party’s citizenship)
- Illinois Cent. Gulf R. Co. v. Pargas, Inc., 706 F.2d 633 (5th Cir. 1983) (jurisdictional basis cannot be established by inference)
- Paterson v. Weinberger, 644 F.2d 521 (5th Cir. 1981) (distinguishing facial and factual attacks on jurisdiction)
- Carroll v. Abide, 788 F.3d 502 (5th Cir. 2015) (standard for granting Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal)
- Williamson v. Tucker, 645 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1981) (court may consider evidence and hold an evidentiary hearing on jurisdictional facts)
- United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (2002) (jurisdictional defects may be raised at any time)