Court Opinion

ID: 9907300
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-06 01:00:33.036108+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:58:22.468286
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30459         Document: 00516990968             Page: 1      Date Filed: 12/05/2023

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

                                      ____________                                FILED
                                                                           December 5, 2023
                                       No. 23-30459                          Lyle W. Cayce
                                     Summary Calendar                             Clerk
                                     ____________

   Raoul A. Galan, Jr.,

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Settlement
   Claims Administrator,

                                                Defendant—Appellee.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Eastern District of Louisiana
                                USDC No. 2:21-CV-109
                      ______________________________

   Before Dennis, Engelhardt, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Plaintiff-Appellant Raoul A. Galan, Jr., proceeding pro se, appeals the
   district court’s sua sponte dismissal of his suit against the Deepwater Horizon
   Medical Benefits Settlement Claims Administrator (the “Administrator”),

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30459        Document: 00516990968              Page: 2       Date Filed: 12/05/2023

                                          No. 23-30459

   the court’s refusal to grant a default judgment against the Administrator, and
   the court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration.
           Galan alleged that he received a letter from the Administrator,
   notifying him of a personal data breach. The last section of the letter
   concerned “[a]ny follow up questions.” Galan sought clarification by calling
   and mailing a letter. When his efforts were unsuccessful, and with “his
   depression . . . now peeking [sic] due to this reckless tort damage,” Galan
   filed this lawsuit against the Administrator and its third-party contractor
   Graphic Village. Galan’s later filings identified his tort claim as one of
   negligence. Galan sought “damages of the total sum from BP of both
   economic and medical settlements including the four separate moratorium
   claims of said Plaintiff and his entities beginning April 20, 2010 to present
   date.”1 After service of process, Graphic Village appeared and filed a motion
   to dismiss the claim against it for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, which
   the district court, finding no federal question or diversity jurisdiction,
   granted after Galan was unable to cure the jurisdictional deficiencies by
   amending his complaint.2 The Administrator never appeared, and the Clerk
   of Court entered default against it. Galan moved for entry of default judgment
   against the Administrator, but the district court sua sponte dismissed his claim
   against the Administrator as frivolous, finding the allegation that failure to

           _____________________
           1
             We previously affirmed the Administrator’s determination that Galan did not
   qualify for class membership under the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action
   Settlement Agreement. LMPC0402457 v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., No. 20-30502, 2022 WL
   1404317 (5th Cir. May 4, 2022) (unpublished). We also previously dismissed as untimely
   Galan’s appeal of the district court’s dismissal of his claims regarding the Deepwater
   Horizon Economic and Property Damages Settlement Agreement. In re Deepwater Horizon,
   765 F. App’x 980, 981 (5th Cir. 2019) (unpublished).
           2
             Galan does not dispute the dismissal of Graphic Village in this appeal. A prior
   appeal raising this issue was dismissed for want of prosecution. Galan v. Graphic Vill., No.
   21-30226, 2022 WL 1732279 (5th Cir. Mar. 7, 2022) (unpublished).

                                                2
Case: 23-30459      Document: 00516990968           Page: 3     Date Filed: 12/05/2023

                                     No. 23-30459

   clarify a letter would result in tortious damages had no basis in law or fact.
   Galan moved for reconsideration, which the district court denied. Galan
   timely appealed.
          Before we may proceed to the merits of this appeal, we have “an
   independent obligation” to assure ourselves of our subject-matter
   jurisdiction. MidCap Media Fin., L.L.C. v. Pathway Data, Inc., 929 F.3d 310,
   313 (5th Cir. 2019); see also Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp.,
   549 U.S. 422, 430-31 (2007) (“[A] federal court generally may not rule on
   the merits of a case without first determining that it has jurisdiction . . . .”
   (citing Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 93-102 (1998))).
   “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co.,
   243 F.3d 912, 916 (5th Cir. 2001) (citing Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of
   Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)). “The burden of establishing federal
   jurisdiction rests on the party seeking the federal forum”—here, Galan. Id.
   at 919. Galan’s complaint does not invoke a certain jurisdictional provision,
   and we are unable to determine jurisdiction exists based on his allegations.
          We have jurisdiction over cases presenting a federal question, which
   are those “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United
   States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. We also have jurisdiction over cases in admiralty.
   28 U.S.C. § 1333(a). The allegations in Galan’s complaint raise no colorable
   issue of federal or maritime law. Further, it makes no difference that the
   Administrator was created by the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class
   Action Settlement Agreement, which arose out of a case in the district court
   brought under §§ 1331 and 1333, and over which the district court has
   retained jurisdiction. See, e.g., In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater
   Horizon” in the Gulf of Mex., on Apr. 20, 2010, No. 10-md-2179, slip op. at 7
   (E.D. La. Jan. 11, 2013), ECF No. 8218. The focus of subject-matter
   jurisdiction is the “category of the claim in the suit,” see Sinochem, 549 U.S.
   at 431, and Galan’s claim here is for negligence in handling personal data and

                                           3
Case: 23-30459      Document: 00516990968           Page: 4    Date Filed: 12/05/2023

                                     No. 23-30459

   responding to requests for clarification, which does not implicate the
   Settlement Agreement, cf. Singh v. Duane Morris LLP, 538 F.3d 334, 337-38
   (5th Cir. 2008) (explaining we have jurisdiction over state-law causes of
   action that necessarily present a substantial issue of federal law); L.A. Police
   Dep’t Protective League v. City of L.A., 314 F. App’x 72, 74 (9th Cir. 2009)
   (unpublished) (applying this principle to a case implicating a court-
   supervised consent decree); Morris v. Police Civ. Serv. Comm’n for the City of
   Charleston, 977 F.2d 573 (6th Cir. 1992), 1992 WL 296554, at *2
   (unpublished) (same).
          In order to invoke diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a),
   Galan must allege (1) complete diversity of citizenship between the parties,
   and (2) that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest
   and costs. Garcia v. Koch Oil Co. of Tex. Inc., 351 F.3d 636, 638 (5th Cir. 2003)
   (citing St. Paul Reinsurance Co. v. Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253 (5th Cir.
   1998)). The party asserting jurisdiction “must distinctively and affirmatively
   allege [] the citizenship of the parties.” Smith v. Toyota Motor Corp., 978 F.3d
   280 (5th Cir. 2020) (alteration in original) (quoting Howery v. Allstate Ins.
   Co., 243 F.3d 912, 919 (5th Cir. 2001)). Here, Galan’s complaint is silent as
   to the citizenship of the parties. Regarding the amount in controversy, when,
   as here, “the plaintiff has alleged an indeterminate amount of damages,” we
   “first examine the complaint to determine whether it is ‘facially apparent’
   that the claims exceed the jurisdictional amount,” and if it is not thus
   apparent, we may look to “summary-judgment type” evidence in the record
   to ascertain the amount in controversy. St. Paul Reinsurance, 134 F.3d at 1253
   (first citing De Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 47 F.3d 1404, 1409 (5th Cir. 1995); and
   then citing Allen v. R & H Oil & Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326, 1335-36 (5th Cir.
   1995)). Plaintiff’s vague allegations do not show the amount in controversy
   exceeds $75,000, and he has offered no evidence to clarify the amount.

                                          4
Case: 23-30459     Document: 00516990968           Page: 5   Date Filed: 12/05/2023

                                    No. 23-30459

          The judgment of the district court is therefore VACATED, and this
   case is REMANDED with an instruction that the district court dismiss this
   case without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

                                         5