Opinion
CIVIL NO. 1:02CV00858
April 29, 2003
ORDER
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil procedure 12(b)(1), Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On October 4, 2002, Plaintiffs filed suit alleging a variety of claims, including a demand for the issuance of a share certificate under Delaware law, inspection of corporate books and records, breach of contract, defamation, and assorted injunctive relief. None of Plaintiffs' claims arise under federal law and therefore do not present a federal question.See Merrell Dow Pharms. Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 808 (1986) (question of whether a claim "arises under" federal law must be determined by reference to the "well-pleaded complaint"). Accordingly, subject matter jurisdiction is proper only if based on diversity jurisdiction.
For diversity jurisdiction to exist, complete diversity, i.e., the state of citizenship of each plaintiff must be different from that of each defendant, is required. Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267 (1806); Athena Auto. Inc. v. DiGregorio, 166 F.3d 288, 290 (4th Cir. 1999). For a corporation, it is "deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated." 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (c)(1). One of the named plaintiffs, BDA Corporation, is a Delaware corporation and one of the named defendants, Insul Industries, is also a Delaware corporation. Because plaintiff BDA Corporation and Defendant Insul Industries are both incorporated in Delaware and are therefore deemed citizens of that state, complete diversity is absent and jurisdiction is improper.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil procedure 12(b)(1) [Doc. #9] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) [Doc. #11] and Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend [Doc. #16] are DISMISSED as moot.