Fornesa v. Enterprise Fin

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [25-20171 Affirmed ] Judge: JEG , Judge: JCH , Judge: CTW Mandate issue date is 09/04/2026 [25-20171]Court Of Appeals 5Aug 14, 2026

Full text

United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________

No. 25-20171
Summary Calendar
____________

Ricardo Fornesa, Jr.; Cynthia Fornesa,

Plaintiffs—Appellants,

versus

Enterprise Financial Group, Incorporated; John
Pappanastos; Scott Knapp,

Defendants—Appellees.
______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:24-CV-4639
______________________________

Before Graves, Ho, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:
*

Ricardo Fornesa, Jr., and Cynthia Fornesa (Plaintiffs) appeal an order
of the district court dismissing their second amended complaint (SAC)
against the above-listed defendants (the EFG Defendants) for lack of
jurisdiction. The SAC alleged that Plaintiffs and the EFG Defendants were
all citizens or residents of Texas, but it added an additional defendant who

*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 14, 2026

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 25-20171 Document: 107-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/14/2026

No. 25-20171
2
was alleged to be a resident of Missouri. Because there was no complete
diversity, the district court did not err in dismissing the SAC for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1); In re Levy, 52 F.4th
244, 246 (5th Cir. 2022). Nor did it err in dismissing the SAC for lack of
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as it did not raise any federal causes of
action.
Plaintiffs also challenge the district court’s denial of their motion
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 to file a third amended
complaint adding claims under the Federal Trade Commission Act and the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Considering the facts of this particular case,
we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the
motion to amend. See Smith v. EMC Corp., 393 F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir. 2004).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Case: 25-20171 Document: 107-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/14/2026

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.