Case Name: Vivian C. WHITE on Behalf of the Minor Child James A. Young v. ENTERGY GULF STATES, INC., Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Westinghouse Electric Corporation and Westinghouse Staffing Services, Inc.
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 2004-06-16
Citations: 878 So. 2d 786
Docket Number: No. 2003-CA-2074
Parties: Vivian C. WHITE on Behalf of the Minor Child James A. Young v. ENTERGY GULF STATES, INC., Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Westinghouse Electric Corporation and Westinghouse Staffing Services, Inc.
Judges: (Court composed of Judge PATRICIA RIVET MURRAY, Judge JAMES F. McKAY, III, Judge MICHAEL E. KIRBY, Judge TERRI F. LOVE, Judge EDWIN A. LOMBARD).
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 878
Pages: 786–798

Head Matter:
Vivian C. WHITE on Behalf of the Minor Child James A. Young v. ENTERGY GULF STATES, INC., Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Westinghouse Electric Corporation and Westinghouse Staffing Services, Inc.
No. 2003-CA-2074.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
June 16, 2004.
Frank Tomeny, III, Jason L. Melancon, Tomeny & Fisher, Baton Rouge, LA, for PlaintiffAppellant.
Richard E. Sarver, Celeste Coco-Ewing, Barrasso, Usdin, Kupperman, Freeman & Sarver, LLC,' News Orleans, LA, for Defendant/Appellee, 3M Company.
Eric Shuman, McGlinchey Stafford, APLC, New Orleans, LA, for Defendants/Appellees, Viacom, Inc. and Westinghouse Electric Company, L.L.C.
Joseph K. West, Kenneth P. Carter, Endya E. Delpit, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant/Appellee, Entergy Gulf States, Inc.
(Court composed of Judge PATRICIA RIVET MURRAY, Judge JAMES F. McKAY, III, Judge MICHAEL E. KIRBY, Judge TERRI F. LOVE, Judge EDWIN A. LOMBARD).

Opinion:
|, Judge EDWIN A. LOMBARD.
In this wrongful death and survival suit, Vivian C. White, on behalf of Delesia White's minor child ("the plaintiff'), appeals the judgment of the trial court sustaining the defendants' peremptory exception of prescription. For the reasons that follow, we reverse and remand.
Pertinent Facts
Delesia White died from lung disease on March 23, 1999. As an employee at the Entergy River Bend Station facility in St. Francisville, Louisiana, between 1990 and 1992, Ms. White's duties included the disposal of the fluorescent light bulbs. The plaintiff alleges that Ms. White's lung disease was caused by contact with beryllium and other contaminants including, but not limited to, those contained in fluorescent light bulbs. Upon her death, the plaintiff (Ms. White's sister) became custodian of Delesia White's minor son, James A. Young.
On March 22, 2000, based on diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the plaintiff filed suit against Entergy Gulf States, Inc. (hereinafter "Entergy"), Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing (hereinafter "3M"), Westinghouse Electric Corporation (succeeded by Viacom, Inc.) and Westinghouse Staffing Services, Inc., (succeeded by Westinghouse Electric Company, L.L.C.) (hereinafter 1 ¡.collectively "Westinghouse"), in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana and service was made on the defendants on March 31, 2000.
Entergy moved to dismiss the action in federal court claiming the court lacked jurisdiction but before determining the jurisdictional issue, the federal court placed the action on "administrative stay" and the plaintiff filed the instant action in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans on October 18, 2000. The defendants responded to the state action by filing exceptions of prescription, improper venue, no cause of action, vagueness and lis pendens, and a motion to stay.
On September 15, 2003, the trial judge in the state action granted the exception of prescription in favor of the defendants and dismissed the action. The trial judge found that although plaintiffs federal action based on diversity jurisdiction was filed within the prescriptive period, "diversity of citizenship as required under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 does not exist and therefore, the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction." Accordingly, the trial judge held because the plaintiffs original complaint was filed in an incompetent court and service of process of process was not made until after the prescription date, the plaintiffs claim had prescribed under La. Civ.Code art. 3462. The trial judge declared the remaining exceptions filed by defendants moot.
The plaintiff filed this devolutive appeal, raising two assignments of error.
Discussion
The plaintiff argues that the federal court was a court of competent jurisdiction because the principal place of business for Entergy is in Texas, thereby establishing diversity jurisdiction in the federal court. The plaintiff maintains that pursuant to her search of the Louisiana Secretary of State website on March 16, |32000, Entergy failed to identify any Louisiana address for it's place of business, but identified 350 Pine Street, Beaumont, Texas as its domicile. Accordingly, the plaintiff submits that she was reasonable in relying upon the public records in concluding that En-tergy's citizenship, for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, was Texas.
Appellant further argues that because of her detrimental reliance on the Entergy's representations made to the Louisiana Secretary of State, the doctrine of equitable estoppel should have been applied by the trial court. In support of her position, appellant cites Roberson v. Lafayette Oilman's Sporting Clays Shoot, Inc., 2002-1275 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/30/03), 845 So.2d 1267. In Roberson, the plaintiff filed a personal injury action in St. Martin Parish based upon the Breaux Bridge, Louisiana address obtained from the Louisiana Secretary of State. Since the entire city of Breaux Bridge fell within St. Martin Parish, the plaintiff concluded that St. Martin Parish was the parish of proper venue. After suit was filed, however, the defendant filed an exception of venue, claiming that the business' physical location was in Lafayette Parish and that it only received mail at the Breaux Bridge address. The court in Roberson found that the plaintiff detrimentally relied upon the information on file with the Secretary of State and, as such, applied the doctrine of equitable es-toppel in favor of plaintiff.
Finally, the plaintiff relies on assertions made by Entergy in two recent unpublished federal court cases wherein Entergy claimed that their principal place of business was in Texas. As such, the plaintiff submits that Entergy cannot now maintain in good faith that its principal place of business is Louisiana.
In response to this appeal, Entergy argues that based on the information provided by the Secretary of State, and attached to the plaintiffs memorandum in | opposition as "Exhibit A," the plaintiff should have been on notice that diversity of citizenship did not exist between the plaintiff and Entergy. Specifically, Enter-gy argues that the Secretary of State information relied on by the plaintiff at the time her lawsuit was filed does not specifically list the principal place of business for Entergy; and, therefore, the plaintiff should have been on notice to inquire further.
Westinghouse and 3M similarly argue that the plaintiffs petition is prescribed on its face and that prescription was not interrupted because the federal court lacked diversity. Westinghouse and 3M further submit that the plaintiffs argument of equitable estoppel does not bar either of them from asserting prescription because there were no allegations that either Westinghouse or 3M did anything upon which the plaintiff justifiably relied.
Law and Analysis:
Prescription is interrupted when an action is commenced in a court of competent jurisdiction and venue or, if the action is commenced in an incompetent court or improper venue, as to a defendant served by process within the prescriptive period. La. Civil Code art. 3462. The applicable prescriptive period in this wrongful death and survival action is one year from the date of decedent's death. La. Civ.Code arts. 2315.1, 2315.2. Accordingly, the suit has prescribed if the federal court was a court of competent jurisdiction.
Louisiana case law has also established that a court lacking subject matter jurisdiction is not a court of competent jurisdiction. Venterella v. Pace, 180 So.2d 240 (La.App. 4 Cir.1965). In Venterella, the state court held that federal court is not a court of competent jurisdiction when the federal court lacks subject matter | ¿jurisdiction over the matter. In Venter-ella, as here, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit in federal court within the prescriptive period invoking federal jurisdiction. However, the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the matter because diversity was lacking. The state court held that, because federal subject matter jurisdiction was lacking, federal court was not a court of competent jurisdiction. As a result, filing the federal court action did not interrupt prescription.
The instant case is distinguished from Venterella on one very significant point. In Venterella, the federal court dismissed its case after a determination that diversity jurisdiction was lacking. In the present case, however, the federal court has not ruled on jurisdiction. Instead, the federal court proceeding was stayed, pending the outcome of this state court proceeding. The only finding that the federal court lacked jurisdiction in this case comes from the state court action. After a review of the trial court proceedings, we find that the record was insufficient for the trial court to make such a factual determination as to whether the federal court was a court of competent jurisdiction. Significantly, the only competent evidence presented to the trial court as to Entergy's principal place of business was the documentation from the Louisiana Secretary of State. Although Entergy provided the trial court with two unpublished opinions of federal court cases finding Entergy to be a citizen of Louisiana, we do not find that evidence to be proper or controlling.
The determination of a corporation's principal place of business for purposes of diversity jurisdiction does not hinge on a single factor. Rather, it depends on a myriad of objective factors. Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912, 920 (5 Cir. 2/28/01). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, a "corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State in which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business." The Fifth Circuit "applies a 'total activity' test to determine the principle place of business." Nauru Phosphate Royalties, Inc. v. Drago Daic Interests, Inc., 138 F.3d 160, 164 (5 Cir.1998). To determine citizenship for the purposes of diversity, courts look to "the nature, location, importance, and purpose of a corporation's activities and the degree to which those activities bring the corporation into contact with the local community." Id.
The procedural posture of this case wherein the state trial court is called upon to determine the existence of federal diversity jurisdiction is problematic. Nonetheless, considering the limited factual record before the trial court and the trial court's failure to make the required analysis as described above to determine Entergy's principal place of business, we find that the trial court erred in ruling that the federal court was not a court of competent jurisdiction.
Finally, we do not find that the plaintiffs argument for equitable estoppel has merit in this matter. In the cases cited by appellant, it is argued that the filings with the Secretary of State are proof positive of a corporation's address and location and can be relied upon to establish venue within the state. Roberson; Major v. Telerecovery of Louisiana, Inc., 99-1935 (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/17/99), 748 So.2d 523. In contrast, the instant case addresses federal diversity jurisdiction, not venue, and in our opinion, the application of equitable estoppel would be inappropriate in this matter. Specifically, in cases involving federal diversity jurisdiction, where the federal court is a court of limited jurisdiction, it is the plaintiffs responsibility to select the correct forum. Sansone v. Louisiana Power & Light Company, 164 So.2d 151 (La.App. 1 Cir.1964); Knight v. Louisiana Power & Light Company, 160 So.2d 832 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1964). As heretofore explained in the "total activity test," the determination of a corporation's principle place of business involves many factors. For appellant to rely solely on the limited information provided by the Secretary of State and not investigate further to ascertain the appropriate forum was appellant's error.
Equitable estoppel has been defined as the effect of the voluntary conduct of a party whereby he is barred from asserting rights against another party justifiably relying on such conduct and who has changed his position to his detriment as a result of such reliance. Thus, there are three elements of estoppel: (1) a representation by conduct or word; (2) justifiable reliance; and (3) a change in position to one's detriment because of the reliance. Elliott v. Catahoula Parish Police Jury, 02-9 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/8/02), 816 So.2d 996, 997 (quoting Wilkinson v. Wilkinson, 323 So.2d 120, 125 (La.1975)). In Morris v. Friedman, 94-2808 (La.11/27/95), 663 So.2d 19, 25, the Louisiana Supreme Court further elaborated on this issue: "[A] party having the means readily and conveniently available to determine the true facts, but who fails to do so, cannot claim estoppel. Further, estoppels are not favored in our law, and properly apply only as to representations of fact.... Finally, '[e]quitable considerations and estoppel cannot be permitted to prevail when in conflict with the positive written law.' " Taking all the above rules of law into consideration, we find that the doctrine of equitable estoppel is not applicable in this specific case.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein, we reverse the trial court's grant of the peremptory exception of prescription and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Specifically, before ruling on the issue of prescription, the trial cou^|smust make further inquiry into Entergy's principal place of business in order to correctly ascertain whether the federal court was a court of competent jurisdiction. Only then can a proper determination be made as to whether appellant's case has prescribed.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
McKAY, J., concurs in the result.
MURRAY, J., dissents with reasons.
KIRBY, J., dissents for the reasons assigned by J. MURRAY.
. A court of competent jurisdiction is one in which the court "has jurisdiction over the subject-matter of, and is the proper venue for, the action or proceeding." La.Code Civ. Proc. art. 5251(4).