602 F. App'x 209
5th Cir.2015Background
- Plaintiff Julia Samuels brought product‑liability claims over a Dr. Miracle’s hair‑care product; defendants removed to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.
- Samuels settled the underlying suit for $15,250 and Murphy Law Firm (her former counsel) had previously withdrawn.
- After settlement, Murphy intervened under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 seeking litigation costs, expenses, and a contingency fee (totaling at most $48,711, Murphy alternatively claimed $42,611 in costs plus up to a 40% contingency).
- The magistrate judge recommended dismissal of the intervention for lack of federal supplemental jurisdiction; the district court adopted that recommendation and dismissed.
- Murphy appealed, arguing the intervention should be allowed and requesting remand of the intervention to state court; the Fifth Circuit reviewed the jurisdictional dismissal de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Murphy is a “person seeking to intervene as a plaintiff under Rule 24” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b) | Murphy argued its fee claim could be heard in federal court following intervention | District court and appellees argued Murphy is aligned with the plaintiff and thus falls under § 1367(b)’s bar on supplemental jurisdiction for Rule 24 plaintiff intervenors | Court held Murphy is aligned with the plaintiff and is a person seeking to intervene as a plaintiff under Rule 24, so § 1367(b) applies |
| Whether Murphy’s intervention satisfies diversity-of-citizenship requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) | Murphy did not establish sufficient diversity to invoke § 1332 | Court found Murphy failed to establish the required diversity for the intervening claim | Court held Murphy did not meet diversity requirement |
| Whether Murphy’s claimed fee/expense amount satisfies the amount-in-controversy requirement (> $75,000) under § 1332(a) | Murphy argued its fee claim warranted federal consideration and sought up to a 40% contingency plus expenses | Court and appellees argued the maximum claimed recovery ($48,711) is legally certain to be below $75,000 | Court held the amount-in-controversy requirement was not met; intervention falls below $75,000 |
| Whether the proper remedy is remand of the intervention to state court rather than dismissal without prejudice | Murphy requested remand of its intervention to state court | Appellees and court noted lack of authority to remand individual intervening claims and §1447(c) requires remand of the entire case | Court rejected Murphy’s remand request and affirmed dismissal without prejudice for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffin v. Lee, 621 F.3d 380 (5th Cir. 2010) (attorney who intervenes as a plaintiff must satisfy § 1332 diversity and amount‑in‑controversy requirements; fee claim under amount threshold mandates dismissal)
- Robinson v. TCI/US W. Cable Commc’ns Inc., 117 F.3d 900 (5th Cir. 1997) (standard of review for dismissal for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction is de novo)