Court Opinion

ID: 9950465
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-14 00:00:36.676964+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:37:13.876199
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30627           Document: 39-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/13/2024

          United States Court of Appeals
               for the Fifth Circuit
                                  ____________                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                     Fifth Circuit

                                                                                   FILED
                                   No. 23-30627                              March 13, 2024
                                 Summary Calendar
                                 ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                   Clerk
Annie Williams,

                                                                 Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                         versus

Progressive Property Insurance Company, erroneously
named as XYZ Insurance Company and Progressive
Insurance Company,

                                            Defendant—Appellee.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Western District of Louisiana
                           USDC No. 2:22-CV-4933
                  ______________________________

Before Davis, Ho, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
      Plaintiff-Appellant, Annie Williams, appeals the district court’s
judgment dismissing her complaint without prejudice for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). We AFFIRM.

      _____________________
      *
          This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30627         Document: 39-1         Page: 2    Date Filed: 03/13/2024

                                    No. 23-30627

                                         I.
       Williams filed a complaint in federal district court alleging that her
“property located in Lake Charles, Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana 70601” was
severely damaged by Hurricane Laura in August 2020, and by Hurricane
Delta in October 2020. She further alleged that the property was insured by
a homeowner’s and/or flood insurance policy issued by “XYZ” insurance
company. Williams alleged that she hired an engineer to provide a detailed
report of the damage; that she provided “Defendant XYZ” with satisfactory
proof of loss; and that the insurance company inspected the property. She
alleged that the company, however, failed “to timely and adequately
compensate” her, breaching its contract with her, and that its handling of her
claim was “in bad faith” in violation of Louisiana law. She also asserted a
claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress for the company’s denial
of her damages. Williams subsequently amended her complaint by naming
Progressive Insurance Company as the defendant in place of “XYZ”
insurance company.
       Progressive Property Insurance Company (hereinafter “Defendant”)
filed a motion to dismiss Williams’s complaint under Rules 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6). Defendant contended that there was “no such insurance entity
registered with the Louisiana Department of Insurance as doing business in
Louisiana under the name, ‘Progressive Insurance Company,’” and that
Defendant is domiciled in Louisiana and was domiciled in Louisiana when
Williams filed her complaint. 1       Because both parties are domiciled in
Louisiana, Defendant argued that the requisite diversity jurisdiction was
lacking, requiring dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule

       _____________________
       1
        Defendant became domiciled in Louisiana four months before Williams filed her
complaint.

                                         2
Case: 23-30627        Document: 39-1        Page: 3   Date Filed: 03/13/2024

                                 No. 23-30627

12(b)(1).     In her opposition to Defendant’s motion, Williams did not
challenge Defendant’s status as a Louisiana domiciliary, but contended that
she should have been notified that Defendant had changed its domicile to
Louisiana and requested time for “some limited discovery to satisfy the ends
of justice and fair play.”
       The district court noted that Williams had the burden of proving
jurisdictional facts and that because Williams raised only state-law claims,
she was required to show complete diversity of citizenship and an amount in
controversy greater than $75,000. Because Williams and Defendant are both
domiciled in Louisiana, the district court determined that diversity
jurisdiction was lacking and granted Defendant’s motion, dismissing
Williams’s complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) without prejudice. Williams filed
a timely notice of appeal.
                                      II.
       We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. Smith v. Toyota Motor Corp., 978 F.3d 280, 281 (5th Cir. 2020)
(citations omitted). The party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of
proving that subject-matter jurisdiction exists. Greiner v. United States, 900
F.3d 700, 703 (5th Cir. 2018). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), a federal court
may exercise diversity subject-matter jurisdiction over a civil action between
citizens of different States if the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
Complete diversity must exist, meaning that no plaintiff may be a citizen of
the same state as any defendant. Flagg v. Stryker Corp., 819 F.3d 132, 136 (5th
Cir. 2016).
       On appeal, Williams does not dispute that Defendant is domiciled in
Louisiana. She states that she “named the wrong defendant” and that
“Progressive Corporation, an Ohio domiciliary . . issues Homeowners
Insurance through Progressive Advantage Agency, Inc., an Ohio

                                       3
Case: 23-30627        Document: 39-1       Page: 4    Date Filed: 03/13/2024

                                 No. 23-30627

domiciliary.” She asserts that the district court should have allowed her
“limited discovery to determine which Progressive Corporation affiliated or
unaffiliated insurer issued” an insurance policy to her. She urges this Court
to reverse and remand so that she can “conduct discovery on the diversity
issue and may amend her complaint to add the proper party defendant.”
       We disagree. First, “a party is not entitled to jurisdictional discovery
if the record shows that the requested discovery is not likely to produce the
facts needed to withstand a Rule 12(b)(1) motion.” Freeman v. United States,
556 F.3d 326, 342 (5th Cir. 2009). In this case, the record clearly showed that
Defendant was domiciled in Louisiana at the time Williams filed her
complaint and thereafter. Furthermore, she failed to provide the address of
the property allegedly damaged and failed to identify an insurance policy
number. Defendant stated that it attempted to locate a policy it may have
issued to Williams, but it could not locate one. Defendant further explained
that the claim number Williams did provide in her opposition memorandum
was not one that Defendant would have issued.
       Second, Williams did not assert in the district court (as she does on
appeal) that Progressive Corporation or Progressive Advantage Agency, Inc.,
both allegedly domiciled in Ohio, were involved in her case. Rather, Williams
contended that at one point Defendant was not domiciled in Louisiana and
that she should have been “notified of the change in domicile by
Progressive.” This Court does “not ordinarily consider issues that are
forfeited because they are raised for the first time on appeal.” Rollins v. Home
Depot USA, 8 F.4th 393, 398 (5th Cir. 2021). Furthermore, Williams
presumably has a copy of the insurance policy or access to her agent who sold
her the policy. She could then check with the Louisiana Secretary of State to
determine whether that insurance company is a Louisiana domiciliary.
Williams does not explain why she is unable to identify the name of her
insurer. She does not argue that she is barred from filing suit in the future

                                       4
Case: 23-30627       Document: 39-1         Page: 5   Date Filed: 03/13/2024

                                 No. 23-30627

against the company which insured her, whichever company that might be.
Regardless, the company named as defendant in this suit is a Louisiana
domiciliary; therefore, we must affirm for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
                                     III.
       Based on the foregoing, the district court’s judgment dismissing
Williams’s complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
is AFFIRMED.

                                       5