Opinion
No. CIV 05-603 RB/LCS.
November 4, 2005
ORDER
THIS MATTER comes before the Court sua sponte. Review of the pleadings indicates that this Court may lack subject matter jurisdiction over the matter styled Dougherty v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. et al., and numbered CIV 05-603 RB/LCS (hereinafter " Dougherty"). "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 (10th Cir. 1998).
The Dougherty Complaint states that federal jurisdiction exists in the present matter pursuant to this Court's diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Indeed, no other potential basis for federal jurisdiction appears in the pleadings.
According to the Complaint, Plaintiff Dougherty is a resident of Colorado and Defendant BFS Retail and Commercial Operations, L.L.C. (hereinafter "BFSRC") is organized under the laws of Delaware and its principle place of business is in Illinois. See Compl. at ¶¶ 1, 3. As discussed infra, however, the remaining Defendants' citizenship is unclear.
Specifically, while Plaintiff indicates that Defendant Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. (hereinafter "BFI") is a Delaware corporation, Defendant BFI's principle place of business is not identified. See Compl. at ¶ 2 (noting only that "Defendant [BFI] . . . does not have its principle place of business in [New Mexico]."). As to Defendant Bridgestone Americas Holdings, Inc. (hereinafter "BAHI"), the Complaint neither indicated where Defendant BAHI is organized nor where its principle place of business is located. See Compl. at ¶ 4 (noting only that Defendant BAHI is "organized in and has its principal place of business in a state outside of New Mexico") (emphasis added). Consequently, as discussed infra, it is unclear whether this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the instant action.
The Court acknowledges that Defendant BFSRC, in a motion paper, noted that: (1) Defendants BAHI and BFI have not been served and that "Plaintiff is considering whether to dismiss" them or to "serve them"; and (2) Defendant BFI is a "non-existent entity." See Def. BFSRC's Br. in Supp. of Mot. to Compel. at 1 n. 2.
It is clear, however, that these statements do nothing to resolve the issue regarding these Defendants' citizenship. Indeed, even if Defendants BAHI and BFI are not, in fact, active parties to this case, unless and until Plaintiff, or this Court sua sponte, dismisses BAHI and BFI from this case, they must be considered in determining whether "complete diversity" exists. See Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826, 829 (1989) ("When a plaintiff sues more than one defendant in a diversity action, the plaintiff must meet the requirements of the diversity statute for each defendant or face dismissal."). Accord Shaw v. AAA Eng'g Drafting Inc., Nos. 03-6252, 03-6286, 138 Fed. Appx. 62, 69 (10th Cir. June 8, 2005) (citing Newman-Green, Inc., 490 U.S. at 829).
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., 125 S. Ct. 2611, 2616 (2005). The diversity statute provides that federal district courts have original jurisdiction to adjudicate civil actions where diversity of citizenship exists and an amount in excess of $75,000.00 (exclusive of interest and costs) is in controversy. 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, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267 (1806)). As interpreted, the statute provides that federal district courts have 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 (10th Cir. 2000).
Here, the Complaint fails to indicate that Plaintiff and Defendants BFI and BAHI are not citizens of the same state. Accordingly, it is unclear whether complete diversity exists here. If either Defendants BFI or BAHI are citizens of Colorado — as Plaintiff is — this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and must dismiss the instant matter. The Court directs counsel to file simultaneous statements addressing the issue by November 11, 2005.