Opinion
Civil Case No. 05-40276.
October 12, 2005
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS CASE
Plaintiffs first filed a complaint on August 31, 2005. On September 6 and September 20, 2005, this Court ordered Plaintiffs to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on September 19, 2005. Finally, Plaintiffs themselves filed a motion to dismiss on September 29, 2005.
Plaintiffs originally alleged that jurisdiction over their suit was proper pursuant to the Miller Act, 40 U.S.C. § 1313 et seq., which generally requires contractors for federal work projects of more than $100,000 to post a bond. See 40 U.S.C. § 3131(b). Federal district courts have jurisdiction of "any action on a bond executed under any law of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1352. However, in their motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs indicate that they have learned that the requirement of a bond was waived in this case. Therefore, since the case does not involve "a bond executed under any law of the United States," this Court does not have jurisdiction. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss [docket entry 10] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action, Civil Case No. 05-40276, is DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's motion to dismiss [docket entry 5] is DENIED AS MOOT.
SO ORDERED.