Depositors Insurance Company v. Cumis Insurance Society Inc et al
| Depositors Insurance Company |
| Cumis Insurance Society, Inc., Neighborhood Credit Union, Pinnacle Park Shopping Center, LP, Capital Real Estate Ventures, Inc., Amara Voth, Maria Montes, Jose Montes, Cumis Insurance Society Inc, Pinnacle Park Shopping Center LP and Capital Real Estate Ventures Inc |
| 3:2023cv01879 |
| August 22, 2023 |
| U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas |
| Ed Kinkeade |
| Contract: Insurance |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Declaratory Judgment |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 5, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 5
ORDER OF DISMISSAL - It is apparent from the face of Plaintiff's Complaint that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter which requires dismissal. See Stockman v. Fed. Election Commn, 138 F.3d 144, 151 (5th Cir. 1998); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3) (court must dismiss action if it determines at any time that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking). Thus, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 9/5/2023) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 4
ELECTRONIC ORDER: "Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute." Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A federal court has no power to adjudicate claims where subject matter jurisdiction does not exist and, consequently, must dismiss the action. Stockman v. Fed. Election Commn, 138 F.3d 144, 151 (5th Cir. 1998); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3) (court must dismiss action if it determines at any time that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking). The Court has an obligation to examine its subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte at any time. See FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 230-31 (1990); see also Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999) ("[S]ubject-matter delineations must be policed by the courts on their own initiative even at the highest level."). Subject matter jurisdiction may not be waived. See Ruhrgas AG, 526 U.S. at 583.Plaintiff filed this case in federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. 1332(a). Doc. No. 1 at 3. Accordingly, the parties' citizenship must be completely diverse in that one of the plaintiffs cannot share the same state citizenship as one of the defendants. See Corfield v. Dallas Glen Hills LP, 355 F.3d 853, 857 (5th Cir. 2003). As alleged in the in the Original Complaint, Plaintiff shares the same state citizenship (Iowa) as one of the defendants, CUMIS Insurance Society, Inc. See Doc. No. 1 at 1-2; see also 28 U.S.C. 1332(c) (corporation is a citizen "of any State by which it has been incorporated and the State where it has its principal place of business."); J.A. Olson Co. v. City of Winnona, 818 F.2d 401, 404 (5th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff alleges only diversity jurisdiction as the basis for this Court's subject matter jurisdiction. Id. at 3; cf. Elldakli v. Garland, 64 F.4th 666, 670 (5th Cir. 2023) ("The Declaratory Judgment Act is not an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction."). Thus, it appears from the face of Plaintiff's Original Complaint that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and, therefore, dismissal is mandated. See 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."); Stafford, 945 F.2d at 805 ("Failure adequately to allege the basis for diversity jurisdiction mandates dismissal.").If Defendant CUMIS Insurance Society, Inc. is indeed diverse in its citizenship from Plaintiff, Plaintiff may amend its Complaint to correct those allegations. However, even if said amendment is possible, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff is completely diverse from the other named Defendants. "When jurisdiction depends on citizenship, citizenship must be 'distinctly and affirmatively alleged.'" Getty Oil Corp., a Div. of Texaco v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 841 F.2d 1254, 1259 (5th Cir. 1988). However, Plaintiff does not allege the citizenship of any party to this action. See Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 196 (1990) (limited partnership assumes the citizenship of each of its partners for diversity purposes); Corfield v. Dallas Glen Hills LP, 355 F.3d 853, 856 n.3 (5th Cir. 2003) (same); Credit Union Liquidity Servs., LLC v. Coastal Fed. Credit Union, Civ. Action No. 3:09-CV-817-G, 2009 WL 1574840, at *1 (N.D. Tex. June 4, 2009)(Fish, SJ) (discussing citizenship of credit union, including the localization exception, for diversity purposes).The party seeking the federal forum bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. See St. Paul Reinsurance Co. v. Greenburg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253 (5th Cir. 1998). Prior to dismissing this case sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the Court will permit Plaintiff an opportunity to amend its Complaint, if possible, to properly allege the complete diversity of Plaintiff's citizenship from each named Defendant by August 30, 2023. If Plaintiff fails to do so, the Court will dismiss this case without prejudice without further notice. See 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."); Stafford, 945 F.2d at 805 ("Failure adequately to allege the basis for diversity jurisdiction mandates dismissal."). (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 8/23/2023) (chmb)
|
| Filing 3 Summons Issued as to Capital Real Estate Ventures Inc, Cumis Insurance Society Inc, Jose Montes, Maria Montes, Neighborhood Credit Union, Pinnacle Park Shopping Center LP, Amara Voth. (sxf) |
| Filing 2 New Case Notes: A filing fee has been paid. Pursuant to Misc. Order 6, Plaintiff is provided the Notice of Right to Consent to Proceed Before A U.S. Magistrate Judge (Judge Horan). Clerk to provide copy to plaintiff if not received electronically. (sxf) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed by Depositors Insurance Company. (Filing fee $402; Receipt number ATXNDC-13975825) Clerk to issue summons(es). In each Notice of Electronic Filing, the judge assignment is indicated, and a link to the # Judges Copy Requirements and # Judge Specific Requirements is provided. The court reminds the filer that any required copy of this and future documents must be delivered to the judge, in the manner prescribed, within three business days of filing. Unless exempted, attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas must seek admission promptly. Forms, instructions, and exemption information may be found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov, or by clicking here: # Attorney Information - Bar Membership. If admission requirements are not satisfied within 21 days, the clerk will notify the presiding judge. (Attachments: #1 Cover Sheet) (Farmer, William) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Texas Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
