Gibson et al v. United States Postal Service et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JANTESHA GIBSON, ET AL. 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 25-124
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, ET AL. 	SECTION: D (5)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before 	the 	Court 	is 	a 	Motion 	to 	Dismiss 	under 	Rule 	12(b)(6), 	filed 	by
Defendants 	Porsha 	Blackmore 	and 	Blackmore 	Contract 	Delivery, 	LLC
(“Defendants”).1 Jantesha Gibson2 and Natisha Gibson (“Plaintiffs”) oppose the
Motion.3 Defendants have filed a Reply.4 After careful consideration of the parties’
memoranda, the record, and the applicable law, the Court DENIES the Motion as
moot and dismisses the above-captioned matter for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
I. 	FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Court has previously set forth in detail the factual and procedural
background in this matter.5 The Court, therefore, provides the factual and procedural
background solely as relevant to the instant Motion.
On 	February 	11, 	2025, 	Plaintiffs 	filed 	suit 	against 	Porsha 	Blackmore,
Blackmore Contract Delivery, LLC, and the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) in
this Court arising out of a November 29, 2022 motor vehicle accident in Ponchatoula,
1 R. Doc. 39.
2 Jantesha Gibson filed suit individually and on behalf of her children J.W. and J.G. R. Doc. 11 at p. 1.
For the sake of convenience only, the Court solely refers to Plaintiffs Jantesha Gibson and Natisha
Gibson in this Order and Reasons.
3 R. Doc. 45.
4 R. Doc. 46.
5 R. Doc. 43.
Case 2:25-cv-00124-WBV-MBN Document 51 Filed 04/08/26 Page 1 of 10

2
Louisiana.6 Plaintiffs 	assert 	a 	claim 	for 	negligence 	against 	Defendants 	under
Louisiana law and asserted claims for negligence and negligent oversight and
supervision of its personnel against USPS pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act
(“FTCA”).7 The Court has since dismissed USPS from the above-captioned matter for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.8
On December 16, 2025, Defendants filed the instant Motion to Dismiss under
Rule 12(b)(6).9 In the Motion, Defendants assert that Plaintiffs’ Complaint “pleads a
state court tort claim against Blackmore Defendants, and to the extent the Plaintiffs
could amend their Complaint to assert other state tort claims against Blackmore
Defendants, the amendment would be without merit as any state court claims are
prescribed, as is evident from the face of the pleadings.”10 Thus, Defendants contend
that their Motion should be granted.11
Plaintiffs have filed an Opposition, in which Plaintiffs maintain that dismissal
is improper.12 As further explained by Plaintiffs:
The complaint, read in Plaintiffs’ favor, adequately states a negligence
claim under Louisiana Civil Code article 2315 and does not, on its face,
definitively establish a one-year prescriptive bar. In particular, the
prescription defense cannot be resolved at the pleadings stage because
factual questions exist as to tolling and the relationship between the
defendants. Moreover, even if the Court finds any pleading deficiency,
Plaintiffs respectfully request leave to amend under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 15(a) rather than a dismissal with prejudice, so that
justice may be done on the merits.13
6 R. Doc. 11.
7 Id. at pp. 1–4.
8 R. Doc. 43.
9 R. Doc. 39.
10 R. Doc. 39-1 at p. 2.
11 Id. at p. 6.
12 R. Doc. 45.
13 Id. at p. 1.
Case 2:25-cv-00124-WBV-MBN Document 51 Filed 04/08/26 Page 2 of 10

3
Thus, according to Plaintiffs, the instant Motion should be denied.14
Defendants, in Reply, contend that “Plaintiffs’ positions are misplaced.”15
Defendants argue that because “[a] federal administrative claim does not toll
prescription of a state tort claim and the United States has been ruled to have no
liability to Plaintiffs[,]”16 Plaintiffs’ state law claims against Defendants are barred
via prescription.17 Accordingly, Defendants reiterate that their Motion to Dismiss
under Rule 12(b)(6) should be granted.18
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; without jurisdiction conferred
by statute, they lack the power to adjudicate claims.”19 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331,
“[f]ederal district courts have ‘original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under
the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States[.]’’’20 “If, on its face, the
plaintiff’s complaint raises no issue of federal law, federal question jurisdiction is
lacking.”21 	Pursuant 	to 	28 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1332(a), 	“[f]ederal 	district 	courts 	also
have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds
the sum or value of $75,000, and is between: (1) citizens of different States; or (2)
14 Id. at pp. 18–19.
15 R. Doc. 46.
16 Id. at p. 3.
17 Id.
18 Id. at p. 3.
19 In re FEMA Trailer Formaldehyde Prod. Liab. Litig., 668 F.3d 281, 286 (5th Cir. 2012).
20 Taylor v. Brook Valley Management, Incorporated, No. 25-10327, 2025 WL 2613236, at *1 (5th Cir.
Sept. 10, 2025)(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1331).
21 Hart v. Bayer Corp., 199 F.3d 239, 244 (5th Cir. 2000)(citing Franchise Tax Bd. v. Laborers Vacation
Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 10 (1983)).
Case 2:25-cv-00124-WBV-MBN Document 51 Filed 04/08/26 Page 3 of 10

4
citizens 	of 	a 	State 	and 	citizens 	of 	a 	foreign 	state.”22 	“The 	diversity
statute requires ‘complete diversity’ of citizenship[,]” as a “federal court cannot
exercise diversity jurisdiction if one of the plaintiffs shares the same citizenship as
any one of the defendants.”23
B. Supplemental Jurisdiction
In pertinent part, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) states that “in any civil action of which
the 	district 	courts 	have 	original 	jurisdiction, 	the 	district 	courts 	shall 	have
supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the
action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or
controversy . . . .”24 Section 1367(c) provides that a district court may decline to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim under subsection (a) as
defined above if “(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the
claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district
court has original jurisdiction, (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over
which it has original jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other
compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.”25
Under § 1367(a), in any civil action in which the district court has original
jurisdiction, a district court “has supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims
sharing 	a 	‘common 	nucleus 	of 	operative 	fact’ 	with 	the 	federal-law 	ones.”26
22 Dos Santos v. Belmere Ltd. Partnership, 516 Fed. Appx. 401, 402 (5th Cir. 2013)(citing 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332).
23 Stiftung v. Plains Marketing, L.P., 603 F.3d 295, 297 (5th Cir. 2010)(citation modified).
24 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
25 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
26 Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22, 31 (2025)(quoting Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383
U.S. 715, 725 (1966)).
Case 2:25-cv-00124-WBV-MBN Document 51 Filed 04/08/26 Page 4 of 10

5
Importantly, as clearly stated in 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the Supreme Court has explained
that “[i]n order for a federal court to invoke supplemental jurisdiction . . . it must first
have original jurisdiction over at least one claim in the action.”27
III. ANALYSIS
The Court begins and ends its analysis with a determination of its subject
matter jurisdiction. “The issue of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived, and
federal courts ‘are duty-bound to examine the basis of subject matter jurisdiction’ at
all stages in the proceedings and dismiss if jurisdiction is lacking.”28 Therefore, before
the Court can address the merits of the instant Motion, it must assure itself of subject
matter jurisdiction to hear this dispute.29
The 	parties 	miss 	the 	forest 	for 	the 	trees 	by 	summarily 	assuming 	that
supplemental jurisdiction exists. Plaintiffs’ Complaint “asserts two causes of action:
(1) an FTCA claim against the United States (through USPS) for the negligence of its
personnel, and (2) a Louisiana state-law negligence claim against the Blackmore
Defendants for breaching their duty of care in causing the motor vehicle accident.”30
Defendants contend that “Plaintiffs could potentially assert state court tort claims
against Defendants based on diversity jurisdiction and supplemental jurisdiction
utilizing the application of state substantive law and federal procedural law.”31
Similarly, Plaintiffs argue that “[g]iven the FTCA claim, this case was filed in federal
27 Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 554 (2005).
28 Reule v. Jackson, 114 F.4th 360, 365 (5th Cir. 2024)(quoting Colvin v. Leblanc, 2 F.4th 494, 498
(5th Cir. 2021)).
29 Id.
30 R. Doc. 45 at p. 2; R. Doc. 11 at pp. 3–4, ¶¶ 16–22.
31 R. Doc. 39-1 at p. 3.
Case 2:25-cv-00124-WBV-MBN Document 51 Filed 04/08/26 Page 5 of 10

6
court, and the Court has at least supplemental jurisdiction over the related state-law
claims.”32 For the reasons set forth below, the Court determines that it lacks subject
matter jurisdiction and dismisses the above-captioned matter in its entirety.
“[I]n any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the
district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so
related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of
the 	same 	case or controversy 	. 	. . .”33 Crucially, however, “[w]ithout 	original
jurisdiction on the federal claim, the court cannot assert jurisdiction over state-law
claims, even if those claims derive from a common nucleus of operative facts.”34
On January 5, 2026, the Court dismissed USPS from the above-captioned
matter for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the FTCA.35 Plaintiffs’ only
remaining claim, therefore, is against Defendants pursuant to Louisiana law.36
Because the Court determined that it lacked original jurisdiction, or federal question
subject matter jurisdiction, over Plaintiffs’ claim against USPS under the FTCA,
supplemental jurisdiction is inapplicable.37 Therefore, the Court must determine
whether it has another form of original jurisdiction – diversity jurisdiction – over
Plaintiffs’ state law claim against Defendants.38
32 R. Doc. 45 at p. 2.
33 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
34 Arena v. Graybar Elec. Co., Inc., 669 F.3d 214, 222 (5th Cir. 2012).
35 R. Doc. 43.
36 R. Doc. 11.
37 Exxon Mobil Corp., 545 U.S. at 554 (“In order for a federal court to invoke supplemental jurisdiction
. . . it must first have original jurisdiction over at least one claim in the action.”).
38 Even if Plaintiffs asserted that they had a cognizable claim against Defendants under the FTCA,
such argument would be without merit. See Linkous v. U.S., 132 F.3d 271, 275 (5th Cir. 1998)(stating
that, under the FTCA, “if [a] [tortious] act was not committed by an ‘employee of the Government,’
then the court must dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction . . . ”). Therefore, because the Court
has already determined that Porsha Blackmore was an independent contractor, and not an employee
Case 2:25-cv-00124-WBV-MBN Document 51 Filed 04/08/26 Page 6 of 10

7
Although Plaintiffs’ Complaint does not invoke diversity jurisdiction,39 “it is
‘well settled that where a complaint fails to cite the statute conferring jurisdiction,
the omission will not defeat jurisdiction if the facts alleged in the complaint satisfy
the jurisdictional requirements of the statute.’”40 As noted, diversity jurisdiction
demands “complete diversity,” which “‘requires that all persons on one side of the
controversy be citizens of different states than all persons on the other side.’”41
The test for determining a party’s citizenship depends on the type of party.42
Regarding parties who are individuals, “the difference between citizenship and
residency is a frequent source of confusion.”43 As explained by the Fifth Circuit:
For individuals, citizenship has the same meaning as domicile, and the
place of residence is prima facie the domicile. Nevertheless, citizenship
and residence, as often declared by this court, are not synonymous
terms. 	Citizenship requires not only residence in fact but also the
purpose to make the place of residence one’s home. Therefore, an
allegation of residency alone does not satisfy the requirement of an
allegation of citizenship.44
For limited liability companies, however, citizenship “is determined by the citizenship
of all of its members.’”45 Accordingly, “to establish diversity jurisdiction, a party ‘must
specifically allege the citizenship of every member of every LLC.’”46
of the government, the Court finds that there is no possibility of federal question jurisdiction. See R.
Doc. 43.
39 See R. Doc. 11.
40 Mendoza v. Murphy, 532 F.3d 342, 346 (5th Cir. 2008)(quoting Hildebrand v. Honeywell, Inc., 622
F.2d 179, 181 (5th Cir. 1980)).
41 Harvey v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co., 542 F.3d 1077, 1079 (5th Cir. 2008)(quoting McLaughlin v.
Mississippi Power Co., 376 F.3d 344, 353 (5th Cir. 2004)).
42 See id. at 1079–80.
43 MidCap Media Finance, L.L.C. v. Pathway Data, Incorporated, 929 F.3d 310, 313 (5th Cir.
2019)(emphasis original).
44 Id. (citation modified).
45 Id. at 314 (quoting Harvey, 542 F.3d at 1080).
46 Id. (quoting Settlement Funding, L.L.C. v. Rapid Settlements, Ltd., 851 F.3d 530, 536 (5th Cir.
2017)).
Case 2:25-cv-00124-WBV-MBN Document 51 Filed 04/08/26 Page 7 of 10

8
Here, diversity of citizenship does not exist. In their Complaint, Plaintiffs
allege that they are individuals who are residents of Ponchatoula, Louisiana.47 An
allegation of residency alone, as explained by the Fifth Circuit, is insufficient.48
Additionally, Plaintiffs filed a Rule 7.1 disclosure statement, which only advises that
“[t]he 	disclosing 	parties 	are 	not 	a 	nongovernmental 	corporate 	party 	(or 	a
nongovernmental corporation that seeks to intervene) nor is the disclosing party
either a party or an intervenor in an action in which jurisdiction is based on diversity
under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)[.]”49 Thus, Plaintiffs’ Complaint and their Rule 7.1
disclosure statement fail to establish Plaintiffs’ citizenship for purposes of diversity
jurisdiction.
Defendants, in their Rule 7.1 disclosure statement, advise that “Blackmore
Contract Delivery, LLC, is a limited liability company with one member, Porsha
Blackmore, who is now and was at the time of the removal a citizen of the State of
Louisiana.”50 	While 	Defendants’ 	Rule 	7.1 	disclosure 	statement 	advises 	that
Blackmore “was at the time of the removal a citizen of the State of Louisiana[,]”51 this
matter was never removed to this Court but instead commenced via Plaintiffs’
Complaint.52 Additionally, in direct contradiction to Plaintiffs’ Rule 7.1 disclosure
statement, Defendants advise that they are either parties or intervenors “in an action
in 	which 	jurisdiction 	is 	based 	on 	diversity 	under 	28 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1332(a)[.]”53
47 R. Doc. 11 at p. 2, ¶¶ 6–7.
48 MidCap Media Finance, L.L.C., 929 F.3d at 313.
49 R. Doc. 41 at p. 1.
50 R. Doc. 31 at p. 2.
51 Id.
52 R. Doc. 11.
53 R. Doc. 31 at p. 1.
Case 2:25-cv-00124-WBV-MBN Document 51 Filed 04/08/26 Page 8 of 10

9
Notwithstanding the above, Defendants adequately allege their citizenship, as they
allege that Porsha Blackmore, the sole member of Blackmore Contract Delivery, LLC,
is a citizen of Louisiana.54 Thus, for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, Defendants are
citizens of Louisiana. Since “establishing the citizenship of one party is insufficient
to demonstrate complete diversity under § 1332[,]” the Court determines that it does
not have diversity jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claim.55
Overall, the Court has already determined that it lacks federal question
subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claim against USPS pursuant to the
FTCA.56 	Additionally, 	the 	Court 	finds 	that 	it 	lacks 	diversity 	subject 	matter
jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claim against Defendants for negligence. As
explained by the Fifth Circuit: “[i]f the record does not contain sufficient evidence to
show that subject matter jurisdiction exists, a federal court does not have jurisdiction
over the case.”57 Dismissal is required.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants are
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.58
54 Id. at p. 2.
55 MidCap Media Finance, L.L.C., 929 F.3d at 314. Notedly, if the Court had accepted the allegations
in Plaintiffs’ Complaint stating that Plaintiffs are “residents” of Louisiana as indicating citizenship,
the result would be the same, namely, that diversity of citizenship does not exist.
56 R. Doc. 43.
57 Settlement Funding, L.L.C., 851 F.3d at 537.
58 In re Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. LLC, 624 F.3d 201, 209 (5th Cir. 2010)(“[I]f the district court
had held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, it should have entered dismissal without prejudice
to allow the Claimants to retry their claims in a court with jurisdiction to hear them.”).
Case 2:25-cv-00124-WBV-MBN Document 51 Filed 04/08/26 Page 9 of 10

10
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss under Rule
12(b)(6)59 is DENIED AS MOOT.
New Orleans, Louisiana, April 8, 2026.
_____________________________
WENDY B. VITTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
59 R. Doc. 39.
Case 2:25-cv-00124-WBV-MBN Document 51 Filed 04/08/26 Page 10 of 10