Gaines v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceutical

Background

Ernest Edward Gaines, who was incarcerated in the Preston E. Smith Unit in Lamesa, Texas, and represented himself, sued AstraZeneca Pharmaceutical, Ferrer, Poirot & Wansbrough, Howard L. Nations, and The Nations Law Firm. He invoked federal-question and diversity jurisdiction.

Gaines alleged that he had received a settlement in 2012 as a member of a New York state-court class action concerning harms allegedly caused by Seroquel. He later developed diabetes and sought a new damages award, compensation for diabetes, and punitive damages. He also alleged that the law firms had provided misleading legal advice.

Jurisdictional analysis

The court had previously given Gaines opportunities to explain why the action should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and later allowed him to amend his complaint to plead diversity jurisdiction. After four extensions of time, Gaines filed an amended complaint.

For federal-question jurisdiction, a complaint must present a claim arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. The court held that Gaines merely asserted that federal-question jurisdiction was available without identifying a federal statute or alleging facts showing that his claims arose under federal law.

For diversity jurisdiction, the plaintiff and defendants must be citizens of different states, and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. Gaines alleged that he lived in Texas. He did not plead the citizenship of AstraZeneca Pharmaceutical, a limited partnership, because he did not identify the citizenship of its general and limited partners. He provided a Texas office address for Ferrer, Poirot & Wansbrough but did not plead sufficient citizenship facts for that firm. He also alleged that the Law Offices of Howard L. Nations, P.C. was registered to do business in New York and had offices in New York and Texas, but he did not identify the corporation’s state of incorporation. The court held that these allegations did not establish complete diversity. The court also noted that it was unclear whether Gaines intended to sue Howard Nations individually and, if so, that he had not pleaded where Nations was domiciled.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). It explained that this dismissal was not a decision on the merits and did not prevent Gaines from pursuing the matter in a state court of general jurisdiction or filing a motion in the state-court class action.

The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Gaines fee-free status for purposes of an appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). The clerk was directed to enter judgment. Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.