Connie Norris v. Magnolia Water Utilities Operating Company, LLC, et al.

Summary

This Order and Reasons addresses motions to dismiss claims brought by pro se plaintiff Connie Norris concerning allegedly contaminated water, water utility regulation, and participation in Louisiana Public Service Commission proceedings. The court dismisses the Safe Drinking Water Act claim without prejudice for failure to satisfy the statutory 60-day presuit notice requirement and discusses jurisdictional issues involving rate-related claims and personal jurisdiction over Central States Water Resources, Inc. The excerpt ends during the court’s personal-jurisdiction analysis.

Holdings

1. The court lacked personal jurisdiction over Central States Water Resources, Inc. because plaintiff did not present sufficient uncontroverted allegations or evidence to overcome the presumption of corporate separateness and establish that CSWR was the alter ego of the Magnolia Water defendants.
2. Plaintiff's Safe Drinking Water Act claim had to be dismissed without prejudice because she failed to provide the statutorily required sixty-day presuit notice.
3. Plaintiff failed to state a procedural due process claim against the Magnolia Water defendants because she did not allege conduct attributable to the defendants that constituted state action.
4. Plaintiff's unjust-enrichment claim was dismissed because Louisiana law makes unjust enrichment a subsidiary remedy unavailable when another legal remedy, including her negligence claim, is available.
5. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims because all claims supporting original federal jurisdiction had been dismissed and the state claims substantially predominated.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court had personal jurisdiction over Central States Water Resources, Inc. based on its alleged contacts with Louisiana or its relationship with the Magnolia Water defendants.
2. Whether plaintiff's Safe Drinking Water Act claim was barred for failure to provide the required sixty-day presuit notice.
3. Whether plaintiff abandoned or failed to state claims for rate-related relief, procedural due process, arbitrary and capricious agency action, failure to protect public health, violations of Louisiana sanitary-law provisions, and unjust enrichment.
4. Whether the court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's remaining state-law negligence and gross-negligence claims.

Disposition

other