TOMMY WILLIS VERSUS TIM HUCK ET AL
CASE NO. 5:24-CV-00573
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA SHREVEPORT DIVISION
July 11, 2025
JUDGE EDWARDS
MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY
Bеfore the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by defendants Tim Huck and ALB Ventures, LLC.1 Plaintiff Tommy Willis (“Plaintiff“) opposes the motion.2 The defendants replied.3
After careful review of the parties’ memoranda and the applicable law, the present Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
I. BACKGROUND
a. Procedural Background
Plaintiff filed suit in this Court on April 30, 2024, asserting a defamation claim and an intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED“) claim against defendants, Tim Huck (“Huck“) and Club Phoenix 2.0 (“Phoenix“).4 Plaintiff filed an amended complaint (“First Amended Complaint“) on May 10, 2024, recasting the same claims against the same defendants.5 On July 19, 2024, defendants Huck and Phoenix filed a
Defendants filed a second
b. Factual Background
Plaintiff, a resident of Texas, owned FNG Trendsetters Booking, LLC, (“FNG Booking“) and worked as a promoter, manager, and booking agent in thе entertainment industry.11 Defendant Huck, a resident of Louisiana, was the managing member and registered agent for ALB Ventures, LLC (“ALB Ventures“), a Louisiana entity which operated Phoenix, a nightclub located in Shreveport, Louisiana.12
Plaintiff secured a contract with Huck to have his client, Ricky Hampton, perform a late-night concеrt at Phoenix on December 15, 2023.13 Plaintiff and Huck negotiated a contract which ultimately contemplated the combination of a down payment and shared revenue from the nightclub‘s ticket sales.14 Plaintiff‘s client performed as agreed, and Plaintiff met Huck in his
Plaintiff and Huck disagreed about how to allocate revenue among themselves and Plaintiff‘s client. Plaintiff alleges that, after demanding payment for his client, Huck stood up from his desk and removed a 9-millimeter (“9mm“) handgun from his holster, cocked it, pointed it at Plaintiff‘s face, and threatened to kill him.16 Plaintiff stоod up with his hands raised and began to walk backwards, pleading with Huck not to shoot him.17 Huck followed Plaintiff with the 9mm handgun as Plaintiff walked backwards to the exit door. From there, Phoenix security escorted him to the elevator.18 Plaintiff also claims that Huck grabbed an AR-15 from behind the first-floor bar and further threatened him as he left the building.19 After leaving Phоenix, Plaintiff called the Shreveport Police Department (“SPD“) to report the incident.20
SPD arrived at about 4:30 a.m. Huck admitted to the officers that he had a firearm during his encounter with Plaintiff, but claimed that he never removed the gun from its holster.21 Huck told SPD officers that Plaintiff attempted to rob him with a firearm.22 Huck was arrested by SPD and charged with aggravated assault with a firearm, but the Caddo Parish District Attorney did not pursue criminal charges against him.23 Plaintiff alleges that Huck “repeatedly lied” to SPD officers when he said that Plaintiff attempted to rob him, and that he “published defamatory statements”
Plaintiff asserts three claims against Defendants. First, Plaintiff asserts a defamation claim, alleging that Huck‘s statements to the SPD officers, which were published in various media outlets, constitute defamation per se.25 Next, Plaintiff asserts IIED and NIED claims against Huck for threatening him with death while pointing a loaded 9mm handgun at him.26
Plaintiff alleges that he suffered personal and professional harm because of Huck‘s statements.27 Plaintiff also alleges that he left the entertainment business and suffered economic losses because of Huck‘s violent actions.28 Plaintiff seeks an award of $10,000,000 in compensatory damages.29
Plaintiff filed suit in this Court pursuant to
Plaintiff opposes the motion and asserts that the allegations in his Second Amended Complaint are sufficient for the Court to conclude that his claims exceed $75,000, particularly
II. LAW
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,” and “possess only that power authorized by the Constitution and stаtute.”35 A federal court has subject matter jurisdiction under
Typically, a plaintiff‘s allegation that the amount in controversy is met “is sufficient to invoke diversity jurisdiction” as “[i]t has long been recognized that unless the law gives a different rule, the sum claimed by the plaintiff controls if the claim is apparently made in good faith.”39 However, “bare allegations of jurisdictional facts have been held insufficient tо invest a federal court with jurisdiction.”40 The district court must first examine the complaint to determine whether it is “facially apparent” that the claims exceed the jurisdictional amount.41 If the amount in
“Once sufficient evidence is produced to establish that the amount in controversy likely exceeds $75,000, the Court may not decline to exercise federal diversity jurisdictiоn unless it appears to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount.”44 “The legal certainty concept appears equivalent to a conclusion that as a matter of law the jurisdictional amount cannot be recovered, or stated differently, no reasonable jury could award that amount.”45
III. ANALYSIS
Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff‘s action on grounds that he failed to allege facts that support the amount in controversy necessary to invoke diversity jurisdiction.46 Defendants assert that Plaintiff‘s alleged damages are broad and conclusory and, in turn, Plaintiff cannot demonstrate damages that exceed the requisite jurisdictional amount.47 Defendants also assert that Plaintiff‘s request for $10,000,000 is not made in good faith given Plaintiff‘s vague and nondescript alleged damages.48
Defendants have challenged this Court‘s subject matter jurisdiction through their
Plaintiff relies on Luckett v. Delta Airlines, Inc. to support his position.53 The plaintiff in Luckett was a passenger on a Delta flight who alleged that the airline‘s loss of her luggage, which contained her heart medication, caused her heart failure.54 The plaintiff‘s complaint alleged damages for “property, travel expenses, an emergency ambulance trip, a six day stay in the hospital, pain аnd suffering, humiliation, and her temporary inability to do housework after the hospitalization.”55 The defendant removed the case from state court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, which the plaintiff opposed on the grounds that her alleged damages did not exceed $75,000 on their face.56 The district court found that it was facially apparent that plaintiff‘s claims exceeded $75,000 and determined that it had proper subject matter jurisdiction to hear the suit.57
In light of Luckett‘s holding, Plaintiff asserts that his alleged damages, referenced below, are sufficient to demonstrate that his claims exceed $75,000.58
45. “[Defendants] tended to (and did) damage Plaintiff in his trade, occupation, and/or business and they did so with malice and knowledge of their falsity.
46. Plaintiff has suffered harm as a direct result of Huck‘s false and defamatory statements.
47. Plaintiff has suffered professional harm as a direct result of Huck‘s defamatory statements.
48. Plaintiff suffered emotional harm as a direct result of Huck‘s defamatory statements.
49. Plaintiff has lеft the entertainment industry and suffered significant economic loss (sic) as a result of Huck‘s violent attack.
50. Huck has with malice injured the reputation on which Plaintiff makes his livelihood, as a Project Manager and promoter, manager, and booker.”59
Plaintiff asserts that he alleged damages – with a “specificity” comparable to those in Luckett – in the form of professional, emotional, and personal harm, and that he incurred significant economic losses from being forced to leave the entertainment business.60 Accordingly, Plaintiff asserts that the value of his claims “far exceed” the jurisdictional threshold necessary to move forward in litigation.61
Put bluntly, Plaintiff‘s alleged damages are not as sрecific as those set forward in Luckett. In Luckett, the plaintiff‘s complaint included itemized damages that were rich in detail; it included particular expenses such as “a six-day stay in the hospital” and “an emergency ambulance trip” which the court could generally evaluate and calculate.62 Plaintiff‘s alleged damages in this case are broad and do not afford the Court with the same ability.
Additionally, Plaintiff‘s Second Amended Complaint does not provide the Court with sufficient facts to support his assertion that his damages exceed $75,000. Plaintiff does not offer facts regarding his economic position before Huck‘s statements, nor does he provide аny allegations as to how Huck‘s statements impacted his economic position. Without more, Plaintiff‘s
Plaintiff‘s opposition also asks the Court to consider the “seriousness” of his factual allegations as evidence that he sustained significant damages, and reiterates details of the alleged incident to highlight the extraordinarily distressing nature of Huck‘s alleged conduct. Notably, Plaintiff emphasizes that he “begg[ed] for his life” while Huck held him at gunpoint and threatened him with murder.64 Plaintiff adds that he immediately called SPD, who investigated the scene upon their arrival and gathered sufficient evidence, based on details provided by Plaintiff, to arrest Huck thereafter.65
Again, Plaintiff does not allege any facts regarding the nature of his distress as a result of Huck‘s actions. Plaintiff does not allege that he suffered mental anguish, distress, depression, or any other harm commonly аssociated with an IIED or NIED claim. While Plaintiff certainly illustrates a dire and traumatic situation, the Court has no insight into the extent of Plaintiff‘s distress. The Court notes that Plaintiff‘s alleged damages appear to flow disproportionately from Huck‘s “defamatory statements” rather than his “violent attack” described at length by Plaintiff.66
Accordingly, the Court concludes that it is not facially apparent from Plaintiff‘s Second Amended Complaint that the jurisdictional amount is satisfied. Therefore, the Court turns to “summary judgment type evidence” – including “comparable cases” – to determine whether the requisite jurisdictional amount exists.67
The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff‘s claims on grounds that thе plaintiff failed to establish the requisite amount in controversy.74 The plaintiff opposed the motion and asserted several itemized damages to prove the extent of his damages.75 Namely, the plaintiff submitted medical records and noted specific values for lost wages, medication expenses, vehicle damage, and treatment costs for insomnia, post-traumatic stress disorder, and depression.76 The Court held that it was not facially apparent from the plaintiff‘s complaint that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, but ultimately denied the defendant‘s motion to dismiss because a reasonable jury, given proof of the plaintiff‘s alleged damages, could “conceivably award [the plaintiff] more than $75,000.”77
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that his claims meet the jurisdictional threshold amount of $75,000. Therefore, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss will be granted. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (R. Dоcs. 14 and 24) is GRANTED and Plaintiff‘s claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Chambers this 11th day of July, 2025.
JERRY EDWARDS, JR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE