MacInnis v. Pan-American Life

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: March 9, 2001
• Docket: 00-30616
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 00-30616 _____________________

RONALD MacINNIS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

PAN-AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee. _________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans USDC No. 99-CV-3890-J _________________________________________________________________ March 8, 2001

Before FARRIS,* JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:**

This court has jurisdiction over MacInnis’s appeal. We

conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

finding that excusable neglect warranted an extension of time to

file a notice of appeal.

After study of the briefs and consideration of the arguments

made by the parties, we are convinced that the district court did

* Circuit Judge of the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation. ** Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. not err in dismissing MacInnis’s complaint for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction. MacInnis’s federal claims are clearly

insubstantial and appear to have been raised for the sole purpose

of obtaining federal jurisdiction.

Because the district court dismissed MacInnis’s complaint for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction, MacInnis is not precluded, by

this dismissal, from raising his breach of contract and unjust

enrichment claims in state court. See Daigle v. Opelousas Health

Care, Inc., 774 F.2d 1344, 1348 (5th Cir. 1985). To prevent any

confusion, however, we remand to the district court with

instructions to enter a judgment that will explicitly “dismiss the

case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the dismissal to

otherwise be without prejudice.” See Voisin’s Oyster House v.

Guidry, 799 F.2d 189 (5th Cir. 1986).

The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED and

the case REMANDED with instructions.

AFFIRMED and REMANDED with instructions.