Gunter v. Louisiana State University Agricultural and Mechanical College

• Court: District Court, M.D. Louisiana
• Decided: June 16, 2020
• Docket: 3:20-cv-00346
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES D ISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TAYLOR GUNTER, CIVIL ACTION NO. ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND OTHER INDIVIDUALS SIMILARLY SITUATED 20-346-BAJ-EWD VERSUS

LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AND AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE, ET AL.

NOTICE AND ORDER

On June 5, 2020, Plaintiff Taylor Gunter (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint in this Court asserting a class action pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), on her own behalf and on behalf of all those similarly situated who paid tuition and fees for the Spring 2020 semester, against Defendant Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College (“LSU”).1 Plaintiff alleges she was a full-time LSU student in the Spring 2020 semester and entered into a contract with LSU, wherein Plaintiff agreed to pay tuition and fees to LSU, and LSU agreed to provide in-person educational services, etc. to Plaintiff.2 Plaintiff asserts that LSU breached this contract when it cancelled all in-person educational services and activities for the remainder of that semester in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.3 As a result of such cancellation, Plaintiff contends that she was denied “the benefit and services for which they (sic) bargained for when they provided payment for tuition and various fees.4 Plaintiff thus seeks a pro rata refund of the tuition and fees Plaintiff paid to LSU for the portion of the semester for which no in-person educational services and

1 R. Doc. 1, ¶¶ 1, 18. 2 R. Doc. 1, ¶¶ 2, 6, 9. 3 R. Doc. 1, ¶¶ 3-4, 12, 15 and see id. at ¶¶ 35-40. Plaintiff also asserts state law claims for conversion, id. at ¶¶ 41-45, activities were provided. However, as explained below, the Complaint is deficient in its allegations regarding Plaintiff’s citizenship, and fails to adequately plead minimal diversity to establish the Court’s jurisdiction under CAFA. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332(d)(2) provides, in pertinent part:

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action in which the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is a class action in which-- (A) any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any defendant;….

Furthermore, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(5) provides: “Paragraphs (2) through (4) shall not apply to any class action in which-- (B) the number of members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate is less than 100.” CAFA thus provides for jurisdiction over class actions where only “minimal” diversity exists between the parties, (i.e., at least one plaintiff and one defendant are from different states), the amount in controversy exceeds five million dollars, exclusive of interest and costs, and there are at least 100 proposed plaintiff class members.6 Accordingly, proper information regarding the citizenship of the parties, the amount in controversy, and the number of proposed class plaintiffs is necessary to establish the Court’s diversity jurisdiction under CAFA. The Complaint alleges that “the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 exclusive of interest in costs,” which appears to meet CAFA jurisdictional threshold, and further alleges that “there are more than 100 members of the Class,” which appears to meet CAFA’s class size requirement.7 With respect to CAFA’s minimal diversity requirement, Plaintiff alleges that LSU “is a constitutional entity established under Article 8, § 7 of the Louisiana Constitution, which is granted the authority and responsibility to ‘supervise and manage the institutions, statewide agricultural

5 R. Doc. 1, ¶ 17. 6 Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 84–85, 135 S. Ct. 547, 552, 190 L. Ed. 2d 495 (2014) “CAFA gives federal courts jurisdiction over certain class actions, defined in § 1332(d)(1), if the class has more than 100 members, the parties are minimally diverse, and the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. § 1332(d)(2), (5)(B); see Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, 568 U.S. 588/592 133 S.Ct. 1345, 1348, 185 L.Ed.2d 439 (2013).” programs, and other programs administered through its systems.’ Louisiana State University is located in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.”8 Moreover, this Court has previously taken judicial notice that the Board of Supervisors of LSU is a citizen of Louisiana.9 However, while the Complaint alleges that “at least one member of the Class, as defined below, is a citizen of a different state than [LSU],”10 the Complaint fails to identify the alleged “different state” and fails to plead the citizenship of a class member(s) who is diverse from LSU. Plaintiff’s own citizenship is unclear, as Plaintiff is alleged to be “a resident of the State of Louisiana.”11 Allegations of residency are not sufficient to adequately allege the citizenship of an individual; rather, “[f]or diversity purposes, citizenship means domicile; mere residence in the State is not sufficient.”12 Accordingly, to properly plead Plaintiff’s citizenship, Plaintiff must plead Plaintiff’s domicile. However, if Plaintiff ultimately pleads that she is a Louisiana

domiciliary, minimal diversity will still not be sufficiently alleged.13 In order to establish minimal diversity under CAFA, Plaintiff must allege the citizenship of at least one putative class member who is diverse from LSU.14 The Court sua sponte raises the issue of whether it may exercise jurisdiction under CAFA in this matter, specifically, whether the minimal diversity requirement is met.15

8 R. Doc. 1, ¶ 22. 9 See Hinson v. Belcher, 736 F.Supp. 711, n. 1 (May 11, 1990) (“[T]he court will take judicial notice of the fact that the defendant, Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College is a citizen of Louisiana.”) 10 R. Doc. 1, ¶ 18. 11 R. Doc. 1, ¶ 21. 12 Mas v. Perry, 489 F.2d 1396, 1399 (5th Cir. 1974). 13 The Complaint does not allege any claims that would give rise to jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 14 See, e.g., Benson v. Fannie May Confections Brands, Inc., 944 F.3d 639, 645 (7th Cir. 2019) (“At the outset, there was some question whether diversity jurisdiction existed pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), because the complaint identified Fannie May as an Illinois corporation and the named plaintiffs as Illinois citizens, and alleged only that at least one (unidentified) class member was a citizen of a state other than Illinois. As the district court recognized, the latter allegation was insufficient. But another filing then revealed that Fannie May is a Delaware corporation. The amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, and so CAFA supports jurisdiction.”) 15 See McDonal v. Abbott Laboratories, 408 F.3d 177, 182, n. 5 (5th Cir. 2005) (“[A]ny federal court may raise subject Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, on or before June 26, 2020, Plaintiff Taylor Gunter shall file an Amended Complaint that contains all of Plaintiff’s numbered allegations, as revised, supplemented, and/or amended, without reference to any other document in the record, that adequately alleges her own citizenship, and that adequately alleges the citizenship of at least one proposed class member who is diverse from Defendant Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College. The case will be allowed to proceed if jurisdiction is adequately established. Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on June 16, 2020. S

ERIN WILDER-DOOMES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE