Grohman v. Mountain West Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company
Grohman v. Mountain West Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company
Trial Court Opinion
FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9/6/2019 FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA coasts U5; □□□□□□ □□□□□ HELENA DIVISION □□□ □□□□□ DONNA GROHMAN, Plaintiff, No. CV-19-58-H-SEH VS. ORDER MOUNTAIN WEST FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. Plaintiff filed a Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial! (“Complaint”) on September 3, 2019, asserting diversity jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 13322However, jurisdiction is not well-pleaded. Diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, if it exists, must be grounded in
28 U.S.C. § 1332, That statute provides in pertinent part: (a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between— (1) Citizens of different States;
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).
' Doc. 1, ? See Doc. 1 at 741.
It is fundamental that federal jurisdiction cannot be presumed. The diversity statute requires complete diversity of citizenship between all plaintiffs and all defendants.’ It is to be strictly construed.’ Plaintiff, as the party asserting jurisdiction, has the burden of proving such jurisdiction exists.’ Here, the Complaint names one plaintiff, an individual, and one defendant, a corporation. Plaintiff's individual citizenship is not properly pleaded.’ Plaintiff alleges only residence and domicile of Plaintiff.* Citizenship is not alleged. Diversity of citizenship is not pleaded.’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) contemplates that lack of jurisdiction can be raised
at any time. Moreover, the objection may be raised by a party, or by the courts own initiative, at any stage in the litigation, even after the trial and judgment entry."
1 See 15A JAMES WM. MOORE ET AL., MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE § 102.12, at 102-28 (3d ed. 2019). * See City of Indianapolis v. Chase Nat. Bank of City of New York,
314 U.S. 63(1941). > See Lew v. Moss,
797 F.2d 747(9th Cir. 1986). ° See Doc. | at 7 1-2, 42. ” See
28 U.S.C. § 1332® See Doc. 1 J 3, 42. * See Doc. 1 at ¥ 41. '” See Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp.,
546 U.S. 500, 506(2006). -2.
ORDERED: This case will be dismissed on September 13, 2019, unless Plaintiff files an amended pleading properly alleging jurisdiction on or before that date. +4 DATED this b “day of September, 2019.
ME E. HADDON United States District Judge
-3-
Reference
- Status
- Unknown