United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 25, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-30748
Summary Calendar
KENNETH ARCEMENT, MARLENE ARCEMENT, DAVID BEALER,
ROSEANN BEALER, STACY BEALER, ET AL,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
AARON BROUSSARD, JEFFERSON PARISH,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(USDC No. 2:06-cv-1640)
--------------------
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiffs appeal the dismissal of their complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s counsel filed eleven
amended complaints, naming numerous defendants and invoking obscure
federal statutes. Finding that the only common nucleus of these
claims is that they arise from Hurricane Katrina, the district
court severed the claims against Broussard and Jefferson Parish.
The original case, O’Dwyer v. United States, was left behind.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
-2-
The district court then ordered plaintiffs to file a single
amended complaint, detailing the allegations against Broussard and
Jefferson Parish and reducing the named plaintiffs to those who
belong in the putative class. The plaintiffs filed the amended
complaint, which asserted only state-law claims of negligence, and
which incorporated by reference legal arguments being asserted in
O’Dwyer, presumably as a jurisdictional hook for supplemental
jurisdiction.
The district court ruled that “[t]hese legal arguments make
reference to numerous federal statutes, some or all of which have
not obvious relation to the cause of actions set forth herein.”
“More importantly,” the district court continued, “counsel has
specifically disregarded this Court’s order by incorporating these
legal arguments and did not set forth in specific paragraph the
jurisdiction basis for federal jurisdiction against these state
defendants and the factual basis upon which any factual statute
relates to the acts or omissions of these defendants.”
Upon review of the amended complaint, as well as plaintiff’s
stridently worded brief, we too are at a loss to discern any basis
for federal jurisdiction. The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.