Thompson v. Acadia Ambulance Service et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONICA RENEE THOMPSON CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO: 24-2258
ACADIAN AMBULANCE SERVICE,
ET AL.
SECTION: "A" (1)
ORDER AND REASONS
The following motion is before the Court: Motion to Dismiss (Rec. Doc. 13) filed by the
defendants Ian Vincent, Courtney Vittorio, Brittany Rhodes, and Justin Alleman (collectively
“the Individual Defendants”). The plaintiff, Monica Thompson, who is proceeding pro se, has
not responded to the motion. The motion, submitted for consideration on September 3, 2025, is
before the Court on the briefs without oral argument.1
I. Background
The plaintiff, Monica Thompson (“Thompson”), has brought this action against the
Individual Defendants and her employer, Acadian Ambulance Service, Inc. (“Acadian”), whom
she alleges discriminated against her on the basis of age. Thompson is seeking to recover for
damages that she sustained during her employment at Acadian from April 2022 until she took
sick leave in January 2024, while working as an Emergency Medical Responder (“EMR”) in
Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Thompson explains that although she applied to work as an Emergency
Medical Technician with Acadian, she was erroneously placed in the EMR class during training.
1 Acadian Ambulance Service, Inc. filed a separate Motion to Dismiss, which was noticed for submission on October
29, 2025.
Case 2:24-cv-02258-JCZ-JVM Document 17 Filed 11/03/25 Page 1 of 6

2
(Rec. Doc. 1-1, Complaint Exhibit 1). Despite the error, she decided to go through with the
training and accepted a position as an EMR. (Id.).
During her training and all throughout her time at Acadian, Thompson alleges that people
asked how old she was and was later told that people in their early twenties and thirties do not
last more than five years as an EMR. (Id.). At that time, Thompson was 57 years old. According
to Thompson, she was asked how old she was every single day of her employment at Acadian.
(Id.). In an email to Acadian’s operations manager and Individual Defendant Ian Vincent,
Thompson wrote that on multiple occasions, partners that she had been assigned to work with
said that they hated working with EMRs. (Rec. Doc. 1-2, Email Attachment at 7). According to
Thompson, the alleged perception of EMRs is that they are “bottom of the barrel employees.”
(Rec. Doc 1-4, Civil Cover Sheet). Additionally, Thompson claims that Courtney Vittorio, an
operations coordinator at Acadian and one of the Individual Defendants, told her that “no one
wanted to work with [her].” (Rec. Doc. 1-1, Complaint Exhibit 1). She also alleges that another
one of the Individual Defendants, operations supervisor Justin Allen, called her and told her that
she was suspended because “none of her supervisors could talk to her.” (Id.). Finally, Thompson
alleges that after expressing her desire to be “PEC’d,” Brittany Rhodes, a Senior Human
Resources employee, responded by saying that Thompson didn’t need to be PEC’d but did need
to get some help. 2 (Id.). Thompson subsequently sought psychiatric help, and a nurse
practitioner diagnosed her with severe depression and anxiety in February 2024. Thompson is
seeking to recover over $9 million dollars from the defendants.
The Individual Defendants now move pursuant to Federal Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(3),
12(b)(4), 12(b)(5), and 12(b)(6) to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,
2 PEC refers to a Physician Emergency Certificate, which is used to detain a subject involuntarily for up to 72
hours due to mental illness. See https://www.jpcoroner.com/mental-health
Case 2:24-cv-02258-JCZ-JVM Document 17 Filed 11/03/25 Page 2 of 6

3
and alternatively to dismiss it for improper venue, failure to effect proper service, and failure to
state a claim for relief against any of the Individual Defendants. The Individual Defendants’
arguments are addressed below.
II. Discussion
When a Rule 12(b)(1) motion is filed in conjunction with other Rule 12 motions, the
court should consider the Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional attack before addressing any attack on the
merits. Hitt v. City of Pasadena, 561 F.2d 606, 608 (5th Cir.1977) (per curiam). This requirement
prevents a court without jurisdiction from prematurely dismissing a case with prejudice. Id. The
court’s dismissal of a plaintiff’s case because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction is not a
determination of the merits and does not prevent the plaintiff from pursuing a claim in a court
that does have proper jurisdiction. Id.
A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) challenges a federal court’s subject matter
jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-
matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). A case is properly
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when the court lacks the statutory or
constitutional power to adjudicate the case. Home Builders Ass’n of Miss., Inc. v. City of
Madison, Miss., 143 F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir. 1998). The district court must presume that a suit
lies outside of its limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction
rests on the party seeking the federal forum. Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912, 916 (5th
Cir. 2001). A court may find that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction by looking at (1) the
complaint alone; (2) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record; or
(3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court’s resolution of disputed facts.
Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001).
Case 2:24-cv-02258-JCZ-JVM Document 17 Filed 11/03/25 Page 3 of 6

4
The Individual Defendants argue that Thompson’s assertion of diversity jurisdiction is
incorrect. The Individual Defendants aver that Thompson was a citizen of Louisiana at the time
of her employment and the filing of the petition, as evidenced by her complaint, and that they too
are citizens of Louisiana.
Thompson asserts diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), which requires
complete diversity of citizenship between the parties, and an amount in controversy exceeding
$75,000. Thompson specifically alleges in her complaint that she is a citizen of Louisiana. (Rec.
Doc. 1, Complaint at 4). The Individual Defendants are also citizens of Louisiana. In their
answer, the Individual Defendants included declarations by each of the Individual Defendants as
to their respective residences. (Rec. Doc. 13-3, Exhibit 1). Defendant Courtney Vittorio is a
resident of Baton Rouge, Louisiana. (Id. at 2). Defendant Justin Alleman is a resident of
Plaquemine, Louisiana. (Id. at 3). Defendant Brittany Rhodes is a resident of Broussard,
Louisiana. (Id. at 4). Defendant Ian Vincent is a resident of Prairieville, Louisiana. (Id. at 5).
Therefore, the parties are not completely diverse in citizenship.3 With complete diversity lacking,
this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain Thompson’s lawsuit.
Having determined that diversity jurisdiction cannot be invoked, this Court proceeds to
determine whether 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal question jurisdiction, provides a basis for subject
matter jurisdiction to this case. Section 1331 vests the district courts with original jurisdiction of
all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. §
1331.
3 The Court notes that Thompson’s current return address is currently located in Austin, Texas. For diversity
purposes, domicile is determined by the totality of circumstances at the time the suit is filed and requires both
physical presence in the state and intent to remain there indefinitely. Knapp v. State Farm Ins., 584 F. Supp. 905, 907
(1984). Given that Thompson specifically alleges that she is a Louisiana citizen and that the alleged events took
place in Louisiana while she was living in Louisiana, the Court assumes that this Texas address is temporary and that
Thompson did not change her state of citizenship before the lawsuit was filed.
Case 2:24-cv-02258-JCZ-JVM Document 17 Filed 11/03/25 Page 4 of 6

5
A plaintiff must affirmatively allege a federal claim for the court to have federal question
jurisdiction. See Illinois Cent. Gulf R.R. v. Pargas, Inc., 706 F.2d 633, 636 (5th Cir. 1983). The
plaintiff is the master of her complaint, and federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal
question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint. Hoskins v. Bekins
Van Lines, 343 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 2003). A federal question “is presented” when the
complaint invokes federal law as the basis for relief. Vasquez v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. H–11–
4086, 2013 WL 12140420, at *5 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 8, 2013). It is not enough that the facts alleged
supporting a state law claim also support a federal claim. Id. As the master of her complaint, a
plaintiff “may allege only state law causes of action, even when federal remedies might also
exist.” Elam v. Kansas City S. Ry., 635 F.3d 796, 803 (5th Cir. 2011).
The Court notes that although age discrimination claims are cognizable under federal law,
nowhere in her complaint does Thompson invoke federal law. In the civil cover sheet of her
complaint, Thompson cited Louisiana’s age discrimination statute, La. R.S. § 23:312, as the
substantive basis for her age discrimination claim. (Rec. Doc. 1-4). Thompson has not invoked
federal law, therefore on the face of her complaint, there is no federal question presented. As
such, her age discrimination claim does not arise under federal law.
In sum, with no diversity of citizenship between the parties, and Thompson’s age
discrimination claim arising entirely under state law, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
Therefore, the Individual Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is
granted. The Individual Defendants’ alternative arguments are moot.
Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons;
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (Rec. Doc. 13) filed by Ian Vincent,
Courtney Vittorio, Brittany Rhodes, and Justin Alleman is GRANTED insofar as the complaint
Case 2:24-cv-02258-JCZ-JVM Document 17 Filed 11/03/25 Page 5 of 6

6
filed by Monica Renee Thompson is dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (Rec. Doc. 16) filed by
Acadian Ambulance Service, Inc. is DISMISSED AS MOOT.
October 31, 2025
_______________________________
JAY C. ZAINEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:24-cv-02258-JCZ-JVM Document 17 Filed 11/03/25 Page 6 of 6