TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Cliburn v. Police Jury Ass'n of Louisiana, Inc.

David H. CLIBURN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. POLICE JURY ASSOCIATION OF LOUISIANA, INC., Defendant-Appellee

Cliburn v. Police Jury Ass'n of La., 165 F.3d 315 (5th Cir. 1999)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
January 15, 1999
Docket
No. 97-30054
Judges
Higginbotham, Duhé, Demoss
Citations
165 F.3d 31522 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 26641999 WL 141771999 U.S. App. LEXIS 484

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

Appellant David Cliburn filed an ERISA claim against Appellee Police Jury Association of Louisiana, Inc. The suit was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, on the grounds that Cliburn sought participation in a “governmental plan” not covered by the statute.

See 29 U.S.C. §§ 1002 (32); 1003(b). Cliburn does not appeal from this dismissal. Following dismissal, the Police Jury Association requested attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses under a provision of ERISA which states: “In any action under this subchapter (other than an action described in paragraph (2)) by a participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary, the court in its discretion may allow a reasonable attorney’s fee and costs of action to either party.” 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (g)(1). The district court awarded to the Police Jury Association $15,600.00 in fees and $533.33 in expenses. Cliburn appeals from that award and argues, inter alia, that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking.

District courts are vested with federal question jurisdiction in “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331 . The district court’s dismissal of Cliburn’s claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is inconsistent with an award of fees and costs under a statute which requires “any action under this subchapter.” In dismissing Cliburn’s suit, the district court determined that there was no ERISA “action.” Furthermore, given that ERISA is inapplicable to Cliburn’s claims, it is inconsistent to conclude that either Cliburn or the Police Jury Association is “a participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary” eligible to invoke § 1132(g)(1). Given that the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear Cliburn’s claims under ERISA, it logically follows that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Police Jury Association’s request for fees, costs, and expenses under ERISA.

See, e.g., Laborers Local 938 Joint Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. B.R. Starnes Co., 827 F.2d 1454, 1458 (11th Cir.1987). We therefore VACATE the district court’s award of fees and costs and DISMISS this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 11 cases

View all citing references →
2000: 32002: 12006: 12008: 12010: 12014: 12015: 12016: 12026: 120002026peak 2000 · 3

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Laborers Local 938 Joint Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. B.R. Starnes Co., 827 F.2d 1454 (11th Cir. 1987) 20

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list