Perdue v. Young

Full title: CHARLES E. PERDUE, Plaintiff, v. ALBERT E. YOUNG, Defendant. TONI WITT…

Court: United States District Court, D. New Mexico

Date published: Oct 18, 2005

No. CIV 04-1179 RB/LFG, Consolidated with No. CIV 04-0207 RB/LFG (D.N.M. Oct. 18, 2005)

Opinion

No. CIV 04-1179 RB/LFG, Consolidated with No. CIV 04-0207 RB/LFG.

October 18, 2005

ORDER

ROBERT BRACK, District Judge

THIS MATTER came before the Court sua sponte. Review of the pleadings indicates that the Court may lack subject matter jurisdiction over the matter styled Witt v. Perdue and Young, and numbered CIV 04-207 RB/LFG ("Witt"). "A federal court must, sua sponte, satisfy itself of its power to adjudicate in every case and at every stage of the proceedings." State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Narvaez, 149 F.3d 1269, 1270-71 (10^th Cir. 1998). The Witt complaint states that Plaintiff Witt and Defendant Perdue were residents of North Carolina at all material times. Although the Witt complaint does not state a basis for federal jurisdiction, it appears that Plaintiff Witt relies on the diversity statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. No other potential basis for federal jurisdiction appears in the pleadings.

The district courts of the United States are "courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute." Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 2611, 2616 (2005). The diversity statute provides that federal district courts have original jurisdiction of civil actions where complete diversity of citizenship and an amount in excess of $75,000.00 (exclusive of interest and costs) in controversy exists. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Since its enactment, the Supreme Court has interpreted the diversity statute to require "complete diversity" of citizenship. Carden v. Arkoma Associates, 494 U.S. 185, 187 (1990) (citing Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch 267, 2 L.Ed. 435 (1806)). As interpreted, the statute provides federal district courts with original diversity jurisdiction of cases "only if there is no plaintiff and no defendant who are citizens of the same State." Gadlin v. Sybron Intern. Corp., 222 F.3d 797, 799 (10^th Cir. 2000).

The Witt complaint states that the plaintiff and a defendant are citizens of the same state. Because no basis for federal jurisdiction appears in the pleadings, the Court may lack federal jurisdiction over the Witt case. The Court directs counsel in the Witt case to file simultaneous memoranda on the issue of whether federal subject matter jurisdiction exists with respect to the Witt case by October 31, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED.