Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO: 01-0186.
May 31, 2001
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court are defendant's, Orion Refining Corporation, unopposed motion to dismiss plaintiff's, William H. Parsons, complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and defendant's, Foster Wheeler Constructors, Inc., motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the following reasons, the Court grants Orion Refining's motion under Rule 12(b)(1) and therefore does not address the motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
I. Discussion
A. Rule 12(b)(1)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) governs challenges to a court's subject matter jurisdiction. "A case is properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when the court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case." Home Builders Ass'n of Miss., Inc. v. City of Madison, 143 F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting Nowak v. Ironworkers Local 6 Pension Fund, 81 F.3d 1182, 1187 (2d Cir. 1996)). "Courts may dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on any one of three bases: (1) the complaint alone; (2) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts in the record; or (3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court's resolution of disputed facts." Clark v. Tarrant County, 798 F.2d 736, 741 (5th Cir. 1986) (citing Williamson v. Tucker, 645 F.2d 404, 413 (5th Cir. 1981)). Furthermore, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that subject matter jurisdiction exists. See Paterson v. Weinberger, 644 F.2d 521, 523 (5th Cir. 1981).
When examining a factual challenge to subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), which does not implicate the merits of plaintiff's cause of action, the district court has substantial authority "to weigh the evidence and satisfy itself as to the existence of its power to hear the case." Garcia v. Copenhaver, Bell Assocs., 104 F.3d 1256, 1261 (11th Cir. 1997). See also Clark, 798 F.2d at 741. Accordingly, the court may consider matters outside the pleadings, such as testimony and affidavits. See Garcia, 104 F.3d at 1261. Moreover, a court's dismissal of a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not a decision on the merits, and the dismissal does not prevent the plaintiff from pursuing the claim in another forum. See Hitt v. City of Pasadena, 561 F.2d 606, 608 (5th Cir. 1977).
B. Analysis
The basis for federal jurisdiction of the present claim is diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. It is axiomatic, however, that for subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship, diversity must be complete. See Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch.) 267 (1806). For diversity purposes, "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." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Orion has submitted evidence demonstrating that its principal place of business is in New Sarpy, Louisiana. Therefore, Orion Refining has Louisiana citizenship for diversity purposes. (See Orion's Mem. Supp. Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 2.) Plaintiff is also a citizen of Louisiana. ( See id. Ex. 1 at 1.) Diversity, therefore, is not complete.
Because diversity of citizenship was the only basis for federal jurisdiction, and because the parties are not diverse, the Court must dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Because the Court lacks jurisdiction, it will not address Foster Wheeler's motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS defendant Orion Refining Corporation's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).