IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-31203

Summary Calendar

JULIA SAMUELS,

 Plaintiff–Intervenor Defendant–Appellee,

v.

TWIN CITY; DR. MIRACLES, INCORPORATED; WAL-MART STORES, 

INCORPORATED; RAANI CORPORATION; BMC 1092; SOLAB, 

INCORPORATED,

 Defendants–Intervenor Defendants–Appellees,

v.

MURPHY LAW FIRM, 

 Intervenor Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.

CINCINNATI SPECIALTY UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, 

 Intervenor Defendant–Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:12-CV-106

Before SMITH, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 18, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-31203 Document: 00513046692 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/18/2015
No. 14-31203

PER CURIAM:*

Intervenor–Plaintiff Appellant Murphy Law Firm (“Murphy”) seeks 

attorney’s fees and costs for its representation of Julia Samuels. In the 

underlying lawsuit, Samuels asserted product-liability claims against the 

manufacturers and retailers of the Dr. Miracle’s hair-care product, and the 

defendants removed invoking diversity jurisdiction. Samuels settled her case

for $15,250.00. Having previously withdrawn as counsel from the underlying 

case, Murphy intervened under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) after 

the settlement was reached; Murphy sought $42,611.00 in litigation costs and 

expenses, and a contingency fee. The district court adopted the magistrate 

judge’s recommendation to dismiss the intervention because the court lacked 

federal supplemental subject-matter jurisdiction since Murphy had

established neither diversity of citizenship nor the amount-in-controversy

requirement. Murphy timely appealed.

We review a dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction de novo, 

applying the same standard as the district court. Robinson v. TCI/US W. Cable 

Commc’ns Inc., 117 F.3d 900, 904 (5th Cir. 1997). Subsection (b) of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1367 provides that “district courts shall not have supplemental jurisdiction

. . . over claims by persons . . . seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24” 

if the Rule 24 intervention does not itself meet the diversity requirements of 

28 U.S.C. § 1332. Section 1332’s familiar requirements necessitate that the 

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and that the action be between citizens 

of different states to invoke federal jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

* 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.

2

 

 Case: 14-31203 Document: 00513046692 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/18/2015
No. 14-31203

The issues, then, are whether Murphy is a “person . . . seeking to 

intervene as [a] plaintiff[] under Rule 24” and whether Murphy’s intervention 

under Rule 24 requesting attorney’s fees meets the diversity and amount-incontroversy requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). We confronted a similar 

situation in Griffin v. Lee, 621 F.3d 380 (5th Cir. 2010) (per curiam). There, as 

here, an attorney who represented the plaintiff in an underlying lawsuit 

intervened after the suit was dismissed, seeking $54,087.51 in attorney’s fees 

and expenses. Id. at 382–83. We noted that, as an attorney who had previously 

represented the plaintiff, his claim for attorney’s fees “align[ed] him as a 

plaintiff . . . intervening under Rule 24.” Id. at 388. Thus, the attorney’s 

intervention was obligated to meet the requirements for diversity jurisdiction 

under § 1332(a). See id. (citing § 1367(b)). Because his claim for attorney’s fees 

“fell below $75,000,” we held that the attorney’s “intervention was clearly 

inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of § 1332.” Id. at 386. 

Accordingly, we sua sponte vacated the district court’s decision awarding 

attorney’s fees “because there was no supplemental jurisdiction over [the 

attorney’s] claim in intervention,” and we remanded with instructions to 

dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Id. at 390.

We conclude that Griffin decides this appeal. As in Griffin and as 

Murphy concedes, Murphy is aligned with the plaintiff and, thus, is “seeking 

to intervene as [a] plaintiff[] under Rule 24.” § 1367(b). Thus, Murphy must 

meet both of § 1332(a)’s requirements. As in Griffin, the district court in this 

case correctly concluded that it is legally certain that Murphy’s intervention 

does not meet the jurisdictional amount-in-controversy requirement. After all, 

Murphy seeks at most $48,711.00 in costs and expenses, including its 

maximum possible 40% contingency fee. Therefore, Griffin requires that we

affirm the district court’s decision that it lacked jurisdiction over Murphy’s 

intervention.

3

 Case: 14-31203 Document: 00513046692 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/18/2015
No. 14-31203

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM.1

1 We reject Murphy’s request that we remand to the district court for remand of its 

intervention to the state court instead of affirming the district court’s dismissal without 

prejudice. Murphy neglects to cite authority for this remedy, and we are aware of none. 

Further, we note that 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) provides for remand of the entire “case,” not specific 

claims or complaints in intervention. See also 14C Charles A. Wright et al., Federal Practice 

& Procedure § 3739 (4th ed. 2015) (“If the federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over 

an action removed under Section 1441 (a) and (b), that court must remand the entire case; it 

may not remand some, but fewer than all, of the claims that comprise the case.”).

4

 

 Case: 14-31203 Document: 00513046692 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/18/2015