Trabelsi v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

RACHA TRABELSI CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO: 24-328

LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS ET AL. SECTION: “H”

ORDER The Court now examines subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte. This Court is duty-bound to examine the basis of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte.1 Subject matter jurisdiction in this case is premised upon diversity of citizenship.2 Cases arising under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 require complete diversity of citizenship.3 “The concept of complete diversity requires that all persons on one side of the controversy be citizens of different states than all persons on the other side.”4 On July 19, 2024, the Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend.5 Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was thereafter filed in the record,

1 Lane v. Halliburton, 529 F.3d 548, 565 (5th Cir. 2008). 2 See 28 U.S.C. § 1332; Doc. 1 at 2. 3 See Stiftung v. Plains Mktg., L.P., 603 F.3d 295, 297 (5th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). 4 McClaughlin v. Miss. Power Co., 376 F.3d 344, 353 (5th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 5 Doc. 16. 1 naming Rachel David and Theresa Hayes as additional defendants in the above-captioned matter.® In her state court petition, Plaintiff alleges that she is a resident of the state of Louisiana.? And now, in her Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Rachel David and Theresa Hayes are both individuals domiciled in the state of Louisiana.® The parties are therefore not completely diverse.? Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter, and this case must be remanded to state court.!°

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the above-captioned matter is REMANDED to the 24th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson.

New Orleans, Louisiana this 22nd day of July, 2024.

g TRICHE Ly 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8 Doc. 17. 7 Doe. 1-3. ® Doc. 17 at 1. 9 See McClaughlin, 376 F.3d at 353. 10 FED. R. CIv. P. 12¢h)(3) CIf the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”); B&P Rest. Grp., LLC v. Eagan Ins. Agency, LLC, 538 F. Supp. 3d 632, 637 (E.D. La. 2021) “Remand to state court is appropriate if the federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.”).