Opinion
Case No. 1:99cv304-D-A.
Filed Date: January 6, 2000.
OPINION
Before the court is the Defendant North Mississippi Health Services, Inc.'s motion to dismiss, pursuant to either Rule 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6), or in the alternative, for summary judgment. Also before the court are the Plaintiffs' motions to review the Magistrate Judge's order and for reconsideration of this court's order granting Plaintiffs' additional time in which to respond to the Defendant's motion to dismiss. After considering the motions, the court finds that the Defendant's motion should granted and the Plaintiffs' motions should be denied.
Factual Background
Plaintiffs filed the instant action on October 6, 1999, alleging personal injury, gross neglect, and wrongful conduct allegedly resulting in the death of their father, Cluster Hall. According to their complaint, Mr. Hall received injuries and died as a result of substandard medical care provided by the Defendant, North Mississippi Health Services, Inc. (NMHS).
Plaintiffs contend that federal jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, since the amount in controversy is in excess of $75,000 and the parties are citizens of different states. To this end, Plaintiffs aver that they are citizens of Mississippi, and that the Defendant NMHS is a Delaware non-profit corporation. NMHS concedes that it is a non-profit corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, but submits that it maintains its principal place of business in Mississippi, thus making it a citizen of Mississippi as well.
Discussion
A. Motion to Dismiss
An action must be dismissed if it appears that the court does not possess subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claims. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), (h)(3). As the party invoking jurisdiction, plaintiffs carry the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 1675, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994). Unlike a court's review of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a district court may examine evidence outside of the pleadings when deciding a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Comprehensive Addiction Programs v. Mendoza, 50 F. Supp.2d 581, 582 (E.D.La. 1999). Where jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship, real and complete diversity must be shown. MacKenzie v. Local 624 Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs, 472 F. Supp. 1025, 1030 (N.D.Miss. 1979).
Section 1332(c) provides that "a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business. . . ." Thus, for purposes of determining diversity jurisdiction, a corporation will be considered a citizen of both the state of its incorporation and the state of its principal place of business. J. A. Olson Co. v. City of Winona, 818 F.2d 401, 404 (5 th Cir. 1987). Here, both Patty Young and Debbie Payne are citizens of Mississippi. North Mississippi Health Services, Inc., by reason of the state of its incorporation, is a citizen of the State of Delaware. However, under section 1132(c), NMHS is also a citizen of the state of its principal place of business.
The Defendant, pursuant to an affidavit of Bruce J. Toppin, Vice-President, General Counsel and Secretary of NMHS, contends that NMHS maintains its principal place of business in Mississippi, and is, therefore, a citizen of both Delaware and Mississippi. While the Plaintiffs concede that NMHS has its registered agent for service of process in Mississippi, they argue that NMHS maintains its principal place of business in Delaware. Based on the parties' submissions, the court concludes that the Plaintiffs' argument is without merit and that they have failed to carry their burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction.
It is clear, therefore, that this court does not have diversity jurisdiction over this matter as both Plaintiffs and Defendant are citizens of Mississippi. Because section 1332 grants federal subject matter jurisdiction only where diversity of the parties is complete, the presence of a Mississippi party on each side of the litigation removes diversity of citizenship as a possible basis of subject matter jurisdiction in this case. See Jones v. Petty-Ray Geophysical, Geosource, Inc., 954 F.2d 1061, 1064 (5 th Cir. 1992). Under the rule of Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. 267, 2 L.Ed.2d 435 (1806), this lack of complete diversity precludes the exercise of diversity jurisdiction and this case must be dismissed.
Plaintiffs' Motions
On October 29, 1999, the Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to amend their complaint and for an extension of time in which to file a response to the Defendant's motion to dismiss. By order dated November 24, 1999, the Magistrate Judge denied the motion to amend the complaint on the grounds that the Plaintiffs had failed to attach a proposed amended complaint to the motion or inform the court in the body of the motion of the amendments they sought to make to their initial pleading. The Magistrate Judge also declined to consider the Plaintiffs' request for an extension of time, instead suggesting that Plaintiffs' petition this court.
On December 6, 1999, this court granted the Plaintiffs additional time to respond to the Defendant's motion. On December 15, 1999, the Plaintiffs filed a "Petition to Reconsider and to Set Order Aside" seeking to have this court reconsider its order granting the extension and issue a new order allowing the Plaintiffs to amend their complaint and granting an additional 15 days to respond to the Defendant's motion. On that same day, the Plaintiffs filed their response to the Defendant's motion to dismiss. In the face of this court's order allowing Plaintiffs' additional time, their response to the Defendant's motion brazenly charges this court with exhibiting bias and prejudice by granting them additional time to respond without simultaneously addressing their motion for review of the Magistrate Judge's order. These contentions not only strain reason, but also the court's generosity.
The court's order granting the Plaintiffs' additional time to respond to the Defendants motion was entered on December 6, 1999. The Plaintiffs' appeal of the Magistrate Judge's order was filed on December 6, 1999, and was received by the undersigned shortly thereafter.
It is the court's opinion that the Magistrate Judge properly denied the motion to amend the complaint. The judgment of the Magistrate Judge was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law, and therefore is affirmed. The court further finds that the Plaintiffs' motion for this court to reconsider its prior order granting additional time for Plaintiffs to respond to the Defendant's motion to dismiss shall be denied as moot.
Based on subsequent pleadings by the Plaintiffs, it appears that they sought to amend their complaint to substitute North Mississippi Medical Center, Inc., as the proper party Defendant. Even if the court allowed the Plaintiffs to amend their complaint, the parties would remain non-diverse as North Mississippi Medical Center, Inc., is also a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Mississippi. See Defendant's Rebuttal Brief and Supporting Affidavit.
Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to dismiss shall be granted, the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration shall be denied as moot, and the Magistrate's Judge's order of November 24, 1999, shall be affirmed.
A separate order in accordance with this opinion shall issue this day.
ORDER
Pursuant to an opinion issued this day, it is hereby ORDERED that:
the Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED;
the Plaintiffs' motion to reconsider is DENIED as moot;
the order of the Magistrate Judge dated November 24, 1999, is AFFIRMED; and
this case is closed.
SO ORDERED, this the _____ day of January 2000.
GLEN H. DAVIDSON United States District Judge