U.S. v. U.S. Fidelity Guar. Co.

20 Citing cases

  1. United States v. N. Am. Specialty Ins. Co.

    Civil Action 21-1373 (E.D. La. Oct. 19, 2021)

    See, e.g., Asbestos Abatement, 2012 WL 1664549, at *4-5 (“[T]he plain language of the statute makes clear that the Miller Act provides a cause of action only on the payment bond between the general contractor and the United States.”); United States ex rel. Tri-State Road Boring, Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 959 F.Supp. 345, 347 (E.D. La. 1996) (holding a bond listing the general contractor Raytheon as sole obligee “was not furnished to the United States, but to Raytheon”); United States ex rel. Capps v. Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md., 875 F.Supp. 803, 808 (M.D. Ala. 1995)

  2. U.S. v. Washington International Insurance Company

    No. CIV 02-1474 MCA/RHS (D.N.M. Sep. 18, 2003)

    In support of this conclusion, the Court notes that the type of payment bond covered by the Miller Act must be "furnish[ed] to the Government" by the contractor. 40 U.S.C. § 3131(b); see United States ex rel. Tri-State Road Boring. Inc. v. United States Fidelity Guaranty Co., 959 F. Supp. 345, 347 (E.D. La. 1996). The payment bond attached as Exhibit C to Plaintiff's Original Complaint was furnished by Belt Con to Metric.

  3. In re Litigation

    No. 08-30492 Consolidated with Case No. 08-30493 (5th Cir. Oct. 6, 2009)

    This court has specifically held that an amendment may not remedy a jurisdictional defect by asserting a cause of action to serve as a statutory basis for federal question jurisdiction. See Whitmire v. Victus Ltd., 212 F.3d 885, 888 (5th Cir. 2000) (citing Boelens v. Redman Homes, Inc., 759 F.2d 504, 512 (5th Cir. 1985) (holding that because "the plaintiffs' motion to amend seeks not to remedy technically inadequate jurisdictional allegations, but rather to substitute new causes of action over which there would be jurisdiction," the motion must be denied "[b]ecause § 1653 is limited to curing technical defects only")); see also United States v. U.S. Fid. Guar. Co., 959 F. Supp. 345, 347 (E.D. La. 1996) ("[W]hen a federal court lacks jurisdiction over the original complaint, as is the instant situation, the Federal Rules of Procedure do not allow the addition of a new party to create jurisdiction."). Thus, supplemental jurisdiction based on the plaintiffs-appellants' federal tort claims act claims against the United States does not provide a valid basis for subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs-appellants' claims against the Parish.

  4. Depass v. Parish of Jefferson

    342 F. App'x 928 (5th Cir. 2009)   Cited 23 times
    Finding plaintiffs's unsupported assertions that claims shared a common nucleus of operative fact insufficient to permit federal jurisdiction

    This court has specifically held that an amendment may not remedy a jurisdictional defect by asserting a cause of action to serve as a statutory basis for federal question jurisdiction. See Whitmire v. Victus Ltd., 212 F.3d 885, 888 (5th Cir. 2000) (citing Boelens v. Redman Homes, Inc., 759 F.2d 504, 512 (5th Cir. 1985) (holding that because "the plaintiffs' motion to amend seeks not to remedy technically inadequate jurisdictional allegations, but rather to substitute new causes of action over which there would be jurisdiction," the motion must be denied "[b]ecause § 1653 is limited to curing technical defects only")); see also United States v. U.S. Fid. Guar. Co., 959 F.Supp. 345, 347 (E.D.La. 1996) ("[W]hen a federal court lacks jurisdiction over the original complaint, as is the instant situation, the Federal Rules of Procedure do not allow the addition of a new party to create jurisdiction."). Thus, supplemental jurisdiction based on the plaintiffs-appellants' federal tort claims act claims against the United States does not provide a valid basis for subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs-appellants' claims against the Parish.

  5. Ivy v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n

    Civil Action 22-4689 (W.D. La. Mar. 20, 2024)

    “[W]hen a federal court lacks jurisdiction over the original complaint, as is the instant situation, the Federal Rules of Procedure do not allow the addition of a new party to create jurisdiction.” United States v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 959 F.Supp. 345, 347 (E.D. La. 1996) (finding federal statute under which plaintiff sued inapplicable and denying request to amend to cure jurisdictional defect); but see Gilbert v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n., No. 07-5278, 2008 WL 696208, at *3 (E.D. La. Mar. 13, 2008) (distinguishing U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. and discerning basis to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims against USAA, where an amended complaint stated federal question claims against another USAA entity).

  6. Hernandez v. El Pasoans Fighting Hunger

    No. EP-21-CV-00055-DCG (W.D. Tex. Mar. 7, 2024)

    (emphasis omitted) (cleaned up) (quoting Forrest v. Nat'l Cas. Ins., No. 18-303-SDD-EWD, 2018 WL 4512169, at *2 (M.D. La. May 22, 2018))); cf United States v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co., 959 F.Supp. 345, 347 (E.D. La. 1996) (“[W]hen a federal court lacks jurisdiction over the original complaint, as in the instant situation, the Federal Rules of Procedure do not allow the addition of a new party to create jurisdiction.”).

  7. Clark v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n

    1:22-cv-04378 (W.D. La. Dec. 29, 2023)

    “[W]hen a federal court lacks jurisdiction over the original complaint, as is the instant situation, the Federal Rules of Procedure do not allow the addition of a new party to create jurisdiction.” United States v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 959 F.Supp. 345, 347 (E.D. La. 1996) (finding federal statute under which plaintiff sued inapplicable and denying request to amend to cure jurisdictional defect); but see Gilbert v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n., No. 07-5278, 2008 WL 696208, at *3 (E.D. La. Mar. 13, 2008) (distinguishing U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. and discerning basis to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims against USAA, where an amended complaint stated federal question claims against another USAA entity).

  8. Cooper v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n

    5:22-cv-04290 (W.D. La. Dec. 18, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    “[W]hen a federal court lacks jurisdiction over the original complaint, as is the instant situation, the Federal Rules of Procedure do not allow the addition of a new party to create jurisdiction.” United States v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 959 F.Supp. 345, 347 (E.D. La. 1996) (finding federal statute under which plaintiff sued inapplicable and denying request to amend to cure jurisdictional defect). Thus, the amended complaint [doc. 40] could not cure the defects in the jurisdictional facts alleged in the original complaint.

  9. White-Goolsby v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n

    1:22-CV-03740 (W.D. La. Dec. 6, 2023)

    “[W]hen a federal court lacks jurisdiction over the original complaint, as is the instant situation, the Federal Rules of Procedure do not allow the addition of a new party to create jurisdiction.” United States v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 959 F.Supp. 345, 347 (E.D. La. 1996) (finding federal statute under which plaintiff sued inapplicable and denying request to amend to cure jurisdictional defect).

  10. United States v. E. Coast Welding & Constr. Co.

    Civil Action ELH-21-1244 (D. Md. Mar. 10, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    ; United States v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co., 959 F.Supp. 345, 347 (E.D. La. 1996) (noting that “the Miller Act specifically requires that the payment bond be furnished to the United States, ” but the bond in question was furnished to a contractor); United States for Use and Benefit of Capps v. Fidelity and Deposit Co. of Md., 875 F.Supp. 803, 808 (M.D. Al. 1995) (“By statute, the payment bond must run to the benefit of the United States, and subcontractors and suppliers are permitted to sue on the bond in federal court in the name of the United States.”).