Rogerio Dos Santos v. Belmere Limited Partn
516 F. App'x 401
5th Cir.2013Background
- Appellants Ribeiro dos Santos, Duarte, and Rodrigues, pro se and in forma pauperis, appeal a district court decision.
- In Oct 2011, Appellants relocated temporarily from Louisiana to Texas for work, intending to return to Louisiana in Feb 2012.
- They rented storage Unit A20 at Belmere in Louisiana to store personal belongings during the temporary relocation.
- Belmere management declared Unit A20 abandoned and allegedly discarded or stole contents while Appellants were away.
- Appellants filed suit in the Eastern District of Louisiana seeking over $10 million in damages on multiple grounds; the district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denied oral argument on reconsideration.
- The appellate court AFFIRMS the district court’s dismissal and ruling on oral argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal jurisdiction exists due to a federal question. | Ribeiro asserts a federal question exists. | District Court found no federal question. | No federal question; jurisdiction lacking. |
| Whether complete diversity existed to confer diversity jurisdiction. | Ribeiro claimed diversity of citizenship between parties. | Court found no complete diversity. | Diversity lacking; domicile remained in Louisiana. |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying oral argument on reconsideration. | Appellants sought oral argument under local rules. | LR 78.1 does not guarantee oral argument; argument denied appropriately. | No abuse; denial upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1987) (federal-question and complete-diversity principles for subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Hoskins v. Bekins Van Lines, 343 F.3d 769 (5th Cir. 2003) (de novo review of jurisdiction; pro se pleading standards)
- Singh v. Duane Morris LLP, 538 F.3d 334 (5th Cir. 2008) (well-pleaded complaint rule; federal question contentions must be on face of complaint)
- Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149 (U.S. 1908) (well-pleaded complaint rule baseline for federal jurisdiction)