Case: 20-30474 Document: 00515933427 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/12/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
July 12, 2021
No. 20-30474
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Toren Washington,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Floyd Mayweather; Mayweather Promotions,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:20-CV-157
Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Toren Washington filed a pro se civil complaint against Floyd
Mayweather and Mayweather Promotions (MP), based on diversity
jurisdiction. He asserted various state-law claims based on the defendants’
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-30474 Document: 00515933427 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/12/2021
No. 20-30474
alleged breach of a verbal contract to produce and market footwear
Washington designed.
Washington argues that the district court erred in dismissing his
complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and in dismissing his claims
against MP for lack of personal jurisdiction. 1 He further argues that the
district court’s dismissal of his complaint deprived him of due process in
violation of the Fifth Amendment and violated his Seventh Amendment right
to a jury trial.
A district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is
reviewed de novo. Randall D. Wolcott, M.D., P.A. v. Sebelius, 635 F.3d 757,
762 (5th Cir. 2011).
Though Washington claimed that he suffered economic losses as a
result of the defendants’ breach of the oral agreement, he did not assign a
value to the agreement. Likewise, he provided no value for the 67 footwear
designs that he alleged the defendants wrongfully retained.
Washington alleges in his brief that it cost him $27,000 “to secure the
opportunity” with the defendants, but this allegation is not in his complaint
and was not before the district court. In any event, it does not establish that
his claim exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). The district court
did not err in dismissing Washington’s complaint for failure to satisfy the
amount in controversy requirement.
Because the district court’s determination regarding subject matter
jurisdiction was not erroneous, we need not address the district court’s
dismissal of Washington’s claims against MP for lack of personal jurisdiction.
1
Floyd Mayweather was not served and did not appear in the district court
proceedings.
2
Case: 20-30474 Document: 00515933427 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/12/2021
No. 20-30474
See Liaw Su Teng v. Skaarup Shipping Corp., 743 F.2d 1140, 1144-45 (5th Cir.
1984), overruled on other grounds by In re Air Crash Disaster Near New Orleans,
La. on July 9, 1982, 821 F.2d 1147 (5th Cir. 1987).
Additionally, there was no denial of due process in Washington’s case.
As MP points out, “Washington had the opportunity to present his case (and
establish jurisdiction) in his complaint.” The district court’s local rules
allowed Washington to file a response to MP’s motion to dismiss, but he did
not respond. A litigant’s failure to respond during a proceeding does not
create a due process issue. See Callon Petroleum Co. v. Frontier Ins. Co., 351
F.3d 204, 210 (5th Cir. 2003).
Washington also suggests that the district court was biased, claiming
that he was denied “an impartial and disinterested tribunal” in violation of
his Fifth Amendment rights. He does not elaborate on this claim or cite to
any record evidence in support. Because Washington has not adequately
briefed his claim of judicial bias, he has abandoned the issue. See Yohey v.
Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
Finally, Washington claims that the district court violated his right to
a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment by dismissing his complaint.
“[Q]uestions of jurisdiction are properly within the ambit of the court’s
authority.” Menchaca v. Chrysler Credit Corp., 613 F.2d 507, 512 (5th Cir.
1980) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The jury, as a trier of
fact, has no role with respect to dismissals for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. See Barrett v. Indep. Order of Foresters, 625 F.2d 73, 75 (5th Cir.
1980).
Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
3