Opinion
No. 02-680, Section: I/5
August 14, 2002
ORDER AND REASONS
Plaintiff, James C. Smith ("Smith"), a Louisiana citizen, filed a motion to remand this action to state court. Plaintiff argues that the third party complaint of defendant, New South Federal Savings Bank ("New South"), against Jack Difranco and Landmark Mortgage Corporation, who are both Louisiana citizens, destroys diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Defendant, New South, opposes the motion to remand. It argues that when there is diversity of citizenship between plaintiff and defendant, the impleading of a third-party defendant who has the same citizenship as the plaintiff does not destroy diversity subject matter jurisdiction.
Rec. Doc. No. 10.
The defendant also argues that there might be federal question jurisdiction over this action. Because the court finds that the joinder of the third-party defendants does not defeat diversity jurisdiction, it is unnecessary to determine whether federal question jurisdiction also exists.
For subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 to exist, there must be complete diversity been plaintiff and all defendants. Evert v. Finn, 1999 WL 246711 at *2 (Clement, J.) (E.D. La. 1999) citing Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch (7 U.S.) 267, 2 L.Ed. 435 (1806). The joinder of a third-party defendant whose citizenship is the same as the plaintiff's does not defeat diversity jurisdiction. Boone v. General Motors Acceptance Corporation, 682 F.2d 552, 553 (5th Cir. 1982). As recognized by the court in Spring City v. American Buildings Company, 193 F.3d 165, 169 (3rd Cir. 1999), "a third-party defendant joined under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14 does not become a defendant as against the original plaintiff, so that federal jurisdiction is not destroyed where those parties are citizens of the same state."
Accordingly, for the above and foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion of plaintiff, James C. Smith, to remand is DENIED.