Felton v. Fifth Third Bank N.A. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
VICTORIA SHANEKA TILLMAN FELTON 	* 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 25-2242
VERSUS 	* 	JUDGE ELDON E. FALLON
FIFTH THIRD BANK, N.A. AND 	* 	MAGISTRATE JUDGE
WISELY ® BY ADP, INC. 	EVA J. DOSSIER
* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	*
ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(5) and 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or, alternatively, for a more definite statement pursuant to Rule
12(e) filed by Defendants Fifth Third Bank, N.A., and Wisely® by ADP, Inc. (collectively,
“Defendants”). R. Doc. 8. Plaintiff Victoria Felton, proceeding pro se, filed four separate
documents, which the Court will collectively construe as her opposition to Defendants’ motion to
dismiss. R. Docs. 12, 15, 16, 17. Defendants filed a reply. R. Doc. 14. The Court has considered
the briefing, record, and applicable law, and will dismiss this case for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). Plaintiff may pursue her claims
against Defendants in state court.
I. 	BACKGROUND & PRESENT MOTION
Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants on November 3, 2025, alleging that she “listed
Wisely for [her] primary account for school and there are some shortages with [her] deposit from
the government more than one time” and lists that these shortages occurred in April 2025, May
2025, and May 2024. R. Doc. 1 at 4. This is the only substantive factual allegation in her complaint.
She sued Defendants, her banking services providers, asking “to be compensated for money not
deposited and inconsistency in charges on [her] account.” Id.
Case 2:25-cv-02242-EEF-EJD Document 18 Filed 02/12/26 Page 1 of 6

2
Defendants move to dismiss this suit, asserting that Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable
claim against them. R. Doc. 8. They also aver that Plaintiff did not sufficiently serve them with
process because Plaintiff sent the complaint via certified mail to a California P.O. box for each
Defendant. R. Doc. 8-1 at 3–4. Defendants contend that Plaintiff should have served each
Defendant’s Louisiana registered agent through personal—not certified mail—service. Id.
Plaintiff filed a variety of responses. R. Docs. 12, 15, 16, 17. Importantly, one document
styled as “Burden of Proof” attached a handful of exhibits that appear to be screenshots of her
student loan information from her Delgado Community College student portal/account and her
loan servicer portal/account. R. Doc. 15. She also attached other documents evidencing the alleged
shortages in her “accepted” loan amounts and her “paid” loan amounts. R. Doc. 15-1. Defendants
replied, largely arguing that Plaintiff does not explain Fifth Third Bank or Wisely® by ADP’s role,
if any, in the alleged shortages and inconsistent charges. R. Doc. 14.
II. 	LAW & DISCUSSION
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and they can only hear cases when one of
two jurisdictional conditions are met: (1) the complaint states a cause of action arising under
federal law, or federal question jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or (2) the parties are citizens of
different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, or diversity jurisdiction, see 28
U.S.C. § 1332. This is called subject matter jurisdiction, and the burden of proof to demonstrate
the presence of subject matter jurisdiction is on the party asserting jurisdiction. Ramming v. United
States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001). Here, Plaintiff initiated this federal complaint, so she
bears the burden of demonstrating subject matter jurisdiction.
“Subject-matter jurisdiction is essential for the federal judiciary to hear a case” and it can
never be waived or forfeited. The Lamar Co., LLC v. Miss. Transp. Comm’n, 976 F.3d 524, 528
Case 2:25-cv-02242-EEF-EJD Document 18 Filed 02/12/26 Page 2 of 6

3
(5th Cir. 2020). Each federal court must ensure that subject matter jurisdiction is present in every
case and can do so on its own, without the parties raising the jurisdictional challenge. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court
must dismiss the action.”).
District courts can dismiss suits for lack of subject matter jurisdiction “‘on any one of three
separate bases: (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.’” Barrera-Montenegro v. United States, 74 F.3d 657, 659 (5th Cir.
1996) (quoting Ynclan v. Dep’t of Air Force, 943 F.2d 1388, 1390 (5th Cir. 1991)). In assessing the
record, the Court must also liberally construe pleadings filed by pro se litigants. Erickson v. Pardus,
551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (reiterating that courts should construe pro se pleadings liberally and hold
them “to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers”).
Here, the Court conducted a review of Plaintiff’s complaint, as well as the briefing and
record documents, to assess whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over the instant lawsuit.
Based on the record presently before the Court, and even liberally construing the record, subject
matter jurisdiction is not present here. Additionally, the Court finds that this deficiency cannot be
cured by affording Plaintiff leave to amend her complaint.
First, Plaintiff does not identify any statute that could support federal question jurisdiction.
And second, it does not appear, on the face of Plaintiff’s complaint, that the two requirements of
diversity jurisdiction are met. Plaintiff’s complaint states that the amount in controversy is
$70,000. R. Doc. 1 at 4. The monetary threshold to establish federal court jurisdiction is $75,000.
28 U.S.C. § 1332. Looking beyond the complaint, Plaintiff does list some potential compensatory
damages that she believes she is entitled to, which totals $20,615.52. R. Doc. 12 at 1. In that same
Case 2:25-cv-02242-EEF-EJD Document 18 Filed 02/12/26 Page 3 of 6

4
document, she further explains that she is asking “for punitive damages [of] 75,000.00 for diversity
jurisdiction.” Id.
These arguments do not carry Plaintiff over the jurisdictional threshold. It is true that it is
well settled that punitive damages can be included in the amount-in-controversy calculation. St.
Paul Reinsurance Co. v. Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253 (5th Cir. 1998). But Plaintiff has not
pleaded the reasons why her claims for relief entitle her to punitive damages and, in any event,
cannot simply argue that the amount-in-controversy is satisfied without pleading any facts or legal
theories that could substantiate that claim. See Lee v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 18-694, 2019 WL
1549429, at *2 (S.D. Miss. Apr. 9, 2019) (“So without knowing the compensatory damages, there
is no way to know the legally permissible punitive damages. And here, [the plaintiff’s] Complaint
offers no basis for determining the extent of [their] compensatory damages.”).
The Court 	has 	reviewed 	Plaintiff’s 	documents 	and 	finds 	that 	Plaintiff’s 	potential
compensatory damages fall far below $75,000, and are so low that even if the Court factored in
any potential punitive damages award, Plaintiff could not plausibly satisfy the amount-in-
controversy requirement. For example, R. Doc. 15-1 appears to be screenshots from Plaintiff’s
account with her loan servicer. Under the “Loans” header, there are line items reflecting the
following:
Year 	Period 	Accepted 	Paid
2025-2026 	8/18/25–12/9/25 	$1,750.00 	$1,732.00
2025-2026 	8/18/25–12/9/25 	$3,000.00 	$2,969.00
2024-2025 	1/18/25–5/13/25 	$1,750.00 	$1,732.00
2024-2025 	6/4/25–7/28/25 	$1,750.00 	$1,732.00
2024-2025 	1/18/25–5/13/25 	$3,000.00 	$2,969.00
2024-2025 	6/4/25–7/28/25 	$3,000.00 	$2,969.00
TOTAL: $14,250.00 	$14,103.00
Informed by Plaintiff’s representations in her complaint that she believes there were shortages
between her accepted loan amounts and the loan amounts she was actually paid, the difference in
Case 2:25-cv-02242-EEF-EJD Document 18 Filed 02/12/26 Page 4 of 6

5
those payments, at least for the foregoing semesters and as reflected by her loan servicer’s
webpage, totals $147.00. See R. Doc. 15-1 at 3–4. Nominal damages like this cannot support the
presence of diversity jurisdiction.
Moreover, the Court notes that Plaintiff submitted what appears to be a screenshot of her
Delgado loan records. R. Doc. 15-1. Her Delgado portal reflects identical nominal fee deductions
that the Court observed to be present in Plaintiff’s loan servicer portal screenshots. Compare R.
Doc. 15-1 at 3–4 with id. at 8, 10. This suggests to the Court that the fee deduction may be
occurring at a point prior to Plaintiff’s student loans entering her bank account(s) with Defendants.
E.g., R. Doc. 15-1 at 8 (depicting the loan period of 1/18/25–5/13/25 with an “accepted” amount
listed as $1,750.00 and a “paid” amount of $1,732.00). Therefore, not only does the Court observe
that Plaintiff has not met the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement, it finds that it is
uncertain whether Plaintiff could state a cognizable claim against these Defendants.
“Ordinarily, a pro se plaintiff should be granted leave to amend her complaint before
dismissal, but leave is not required when she has already pled her ‘best case.’” Schaefer v. David
Simpson Harris County IV-D Agency, No. 24-1142, 2024 WL 4682340, at *4 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 24,
2024), report and recommendation adopted, 2024 WL 4681618 (citing Brewster v. Dretke, 587
F.3d 764, 767–68 (5th Cir. 2009)). Based on the record before it, the Court finds that Plaintiff has
pleaded her best case and cannot state a cognizable claim against these Defendants based on the
factual contention in her complaint.
III. 	CONCLUSION
Considering the foregoing,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
for lack of diversity jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Plaintiff may choose to proceed in state
Case 2:25-cv-02242-EEF-EJD Document 18 Filed 02/12/26 Page 5 of 6

6
court against the appropriate parties, or refile her action in federal court with appropriate support
that federal jurisdiction is appropriate.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are hereby DENIED AS MOOT.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 12th day of February, 2026.
THE HONORABLE ELDON E. FALLON
Case 2:25-cv-02242-EEF-EJD Document 18 Filed 02/12/26 Page 6 of 6