Lamie v. Smith et al
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT: for lack of subject matter jurisdiction ; signed by Chief Judge Paul L. Maloney (Chief Judge Paul L. Maloney, aeb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
ERVIN JOSEPH LAMIE, JR.,
PAMELA SUE SMITH,
DAVID W. LAMIE, and
MURIEL D. LAMIE,
HONORABLE PAUL L. MALONEY
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
Based on its initial review of the Complaint, the court issues this sua sponte order dismissing
the present action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
This case involves three claims brought by Plaintiff Ervin Joseph LaMie, Jr. against
Defendants Greg Smith, Pamela Sue Smith, David W. LaMie, and Muriel D. LaMie. Plaintiff
alleges (1) a claim of “waste to land”; (2) wrongful eviction and conversion; and (3) intentional
infliction of emotional distress, all based on actions the Defendants have taken regarding a piece of
property in Ottawa County, Michigan.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1) requires that a pleading state the basis for the court’s jurisdiction. The
“federal courts have a duty to consider their subject matter jurisdiction in regard to every case and
may raise the issue sua sponte.” Answers in Genesis of Ky., Inc. v. Creation Ministries Int’l, Ltd.,
556 F.3d 459, 465 (6th Cir. 2009). In this case, the complaint alleges diversity jurisdiction based
on “the jurisdictional issues of the different defendants in other states and the amounts exceed[ing]
seventy five thousand dollars.”
Diversity is based on the citizenship of the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The federal
diversity statute requires that diversity actions be founded on complete diversity of citizenship—that
is, that no defendant be a citizen of the same state as any plaintiff. See Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche,
546 U.S. 81, 89 (2005). Here, however, both Plaintiff and Defendant David W. LaMie are alleged
to reside in the state of Michigan, and the complaint contains no allegations suggesting that either
party is not in fact a Michigan citizen. Though the other Defendants are residents of other states,
diversity cannot exist where a plaintiff and a defendant share citizenship. Therefore, it appears that
this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the present dispute, and, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(h)(3), the court must dismiss this action.
For these reasons, the present action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
February 22, 2012
/s/ Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
Chief United States District Judge