Fornesa v. Enterprise Fin

Case: 25-20171 Document: 107-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/14/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED August 14, 2026 No. 25-20171 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk ____________ 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 Case: 25-20171 Document: 107-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/14/2026

No. 25-20171 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.