Opinion
01 Civ. 9718 (LAK)
January 8, 2002
ORDER
By order dated November 28, 2001, the Court dismissed the action for failure to allege subject matter jurisdiction. The order stated, inter alia," [a]mong other things, [the complaint] erroneously assumes that the general venue statute confers jurisdiction and fails to allege the minimum amount in controversy."
By letters dated January 7 and 8, 2002, plaintiff's counsel seeks reconsideration. He points out that "[P]ursuant to U.S.C.A. Section 1991(a) `Where substantial portion of the events are questioned given rise to the claim occurred', may be the basis of jurisdiction." [sic] Further, he offers to amend the complaint to assert the requisite amount in controversy.
Counsel simply does not get it. As the November 28 order clearly stated, subject matter jurisdiction, which is a concept very different from venue, is not conferred by the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a), presumably the statute to which counsel's reference to "Section 1991(a)" was intended to draw attention. Nothing in either of these letters gives any reason to hope that the jurisdictional defects, save that relating to the matter in controversy, could be cured by amendment. Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is denied. The ruling stands.
SO ORDERED.