Bastnagel v. State Farm Lloyds

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
JACQUELINE BASTNAGEL, §
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-CV-3541
§
STATE FARM LLOYDS, §
Defendant. §
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Jacqueline Bastnagel filed this insurance dispute in Texas state court
on April 28, 2025 from beyond the grave. 1 ECF 1-2. Defendant removed the case
to this federal court based on diversity subject matter jurisdiction. ECF 1. Now
before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Claims under Rules
12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). ECF 12. The Motion to Dismiss has been fully briefed and
is ripe for disposition. ECF 12; ECF 13; ECF 15. Having considered the parties’
submissions and the law, the Court recommends that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
be GRANTED.
I. Background
Jacqueline Bastnagel filed a claim under her homeowner policy with
Defendant State Farm (Policy) for water damage to her condo in Houston, Texas
1 The District Court referred this case to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), the Cost and Delay Reduction Plan under the Civil Justice Reform Act,
and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. ECF 16.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 30, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-03541 Document 22 Filed 03/30/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 5

2
(Property) that occurred on September 20, 2024. ECF 1-2 at 5. She filed a lawsuit
in Texas State Court on April 28, 2025, which was later removed to federal court by
State Farm on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. However, Jacqueline Bastnagel
died on January 2, 2025, before her counsel filed this lawsuit. ECF 14-1.
On February 15, 2025, Bastnagel’s counsel sent a formal demand letter for
$87,175.95 for covered damages and $10,000 for attorney’s and also invoked the
Policy’s appraisal clause. Id. at 6. State Farm did not pay and Bastnagel, through
counsel, initiated this lawsuit in Texas state court, asserting claims for violation of
the Texas Insurance Code, the Texas Prompt Payment of Claim Act, Breach of
Contract, and common law violations of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. Id.
at 8-14. Defendant moves to dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
under Rule 12(b)(1) and failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). ECF 12. At
the time of filing Plaintiff’s Response, Plaintiff’s counsel finally filed a Suggestion
of Death. ECF 14. Because the Rule 12(b)(1) motion is dispositive, the Court does
not address Rule 12(b)(6).
II. Rule 12(b)(1) Standards
When subject matter jurisdiction is challenged, the court “is free to weigh the
evidence and resolve factual disputes in order to satisfy itself that it has power to
hear the case.” Montez v. Dep’t of the Navy, 392 F.3d 147, 149 (5th Cir. 2004); Krim
v. Pcorder.com, 402 F.3d 489, 494 (5th Cir. 2005). The Court may consider any of
Case 4:25-cv-03541 Document 22 Filed 03/30/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 5

3
the following in resolving a Rule 12(b)(1) motion: (1) the complaint alone; (2) the
complaint supplemented by the undisputed facts evidenced in the record; or (3) the
complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court's resolution of disputed
facts. Hopkins v. Wayside Schs., No. 23-50600, 2024 WL 3738478, at *4 (5th Cir.
Aug. 9, 2024); Schaeffler v. United States, 889 F.3d 238, 242 (5th Cir. 2018). When
a Defendant files a motion under Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of
establishing subject matter jurisdiction. Exelon Wind 1, L.L.C. v. Nelson, 766 F.3d
380, 388 (5th Cir. 2014). If the plaintiff fails to meet his burden, the case must be
dismissed. Id.
III. Analysis
The Fifth Circuit has recognized what seems obvious: a deceased plaintiff has
no standing to bring a lawsuit. Hernandez v. Smith, 793 F. App'x 261, 265 (5th Cir.
2019) (citing Armes v. Thompson, 222 S.W.3d 79 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2006, no
pet.) for proposition that an original pleading filed after the named plaintiff has died
is “a nullity”). This follows from the rule that a plaintiff may bring a lawsuit only
to assert her own legal rights and interests and, as a corollary, “[a]n action must be
prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” United States v. Johnson, 632
F.3d 912, 919–20 (5th Cir. 2011); FED. R. CIV. P. 17(a)(1).
Rule 17(a)(3) sets out a process for joinder of the real party in interest in some
cases. In addition, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25 permits substitution for a
Case 4:25-cv-03541 Document 22 Filed 03/30/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 5

4
deceased plaintiff when the claim is not extinguished by death. However, neither
Rule 17 nor Rule 25 permits a case to proceed when the plaintiff was deceased before
the lawsuit was filed. See Mizukami v. Buras, 419 F.2d 1319, 1320 (5th Cir. 1969)
(holding that Rule 25 substitution is not available if named plaintiff predeceased the
filing of the action); Chaisson v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. CV 2:23-2551,
2024 WL 4271555, at *3 (E.D. La. Sept. 23, 2024) (holding that neither Rule 17 nor
Rule 25 can cure the jurisdictional deficiency when the plaintiff, “a deceased person,
was never a proper party to begin with”). As one district court has noted “a party
must have a legal existence in order to bring suit, and the dead lack such legal
existence.” Balistreri-Amrhein v. Verrilli, No. 416CV00112ALMCAN, 2016 WL
11191119, at *2 n.1 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 7, 2016), report and recommendation adopted,
No. 4:16-CV-112, 2017 WL 726919 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 24, 2017) (citing Adelsberger
v. United States, 58 Fed. Cl. 616, 618 (2003)).
Plaintiff’s Response argues that dismissal with prejudice is not appropriate
and the Court should permit counsel time to initiate an appointment of an executor
and substitution pursuant to Rule 25. ECF 13. Plaintiff’s Response does not provide
any authority for this argument and does not distinguish the authorities cited by
Defendant and above. See id. The Court agrees that dismissal should be without
prejudice. Ruiz v. Brennan, 851 F.3d 464, 473 (5th Cir. 2017) (holding dismissal for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction is properly without prejudice). However,
Case 4:25-cv-03541 Document 22 Filed 03/30/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 5

5
Jacqueline Bastnagel, who pre-deceased this lawsuit, has no capacity to sue or be
sued and has no standing to bring this case. Bastnagel is the only named Plaintiff.
Therefore, this case must be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
IV. Conclusion and Recommendation
For the reasons set forth above, the Court RECOMMENDS that Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss (ECF 12) be GRANTED and this case be dismissed without
prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The Clerk of the Court shall send copies of the memorandum and
recommendation to the respective parties, who will then have fourteen days to file
written objections, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Failure to file written
objections within the time period provided will bar an aggrieved party from attacking
the factual findings and legal conclusions on appeal. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto.
Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on
other grounds.
Christina A. Bryan
United States Magistrate Judge
Signed on March 30, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
Case 4:25-cv-03541 Document 22 Filed 03/30/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 5