Lena Hardaway v. Checkers Drive-In Restaurant
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:11-cv-01575-RWT. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998878964]. Mailed to: Lena Hardaway. [12-1213]
Appeal: 12-1213
Doc: 13
Filed: 06/20/2012
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1213
LENA HARDAWAY,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
CHECKERS
DRIVE-IN
RESTAURANTS,
INC.;
CHECKERS/RALLY
RESTAURANT; ADVENTURES THREE INC.; DOUGLAS S. GORDON
INSURANCE SERVICES; JOHN DOE INSURANCE COMPANY; IMOGENE F.
HOLMES; DOES 1-25,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Roger W. Titus, District Judge.
(8:11-cv-01575-RWT)
Submitted:
June 14, 2012
Decided:
June 20, 2012
Before KING, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lena Hardaway, Appellant Pro Se.
Richard E. Schimel, BUDOW &
NOBLE, PC, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellee Checkers Drive-In
Restaurants, Inc.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 12-1213
Doc: 13
Filed: 06/20/2012
Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Lena Hardaway appeals from the district court’s order
dismissing her civil suit for lack of diversity jurisdiction.
On appeal, Hardaway contends that the district court erred by
failing to permit her to file an amended complaint “correcting”
her own domicile allegations and dropping nondiverse defendants.
We
vacate
the
district
court’s
order
and
remand
for
further
consideration.
District courts have original jurisdiction over civil
actions in which the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and
when the dispute is between citizens of different states.
U.S.C.
§
1332(a)(1)
diversity
(2006).
jurisdiction
has
diversity of citizenship.
1301 (3d Cir. 1972).
A
the
party
burden
seeking
of
to
showing
28
invoke
complete
See Krasnov v. Dinan, 465 F.2d 1298,
The presence of a defendant who is a
citizen of the same state as the plaintiff destroys complete
diversity
&
and,
Erection
Caperton v.
Co.
therefore,
v.
Beatrice
federal
Kroger,
437
Pocahontas
jurisdiction.
U.S.
Coal
365,
Co.,
585
Owen
373-74
F.2d
Equip.
(1978);
683,
691
(4th Cir. 1978).
Here, the district court found that Hardaway’s attempt
to amend her complaint was not permitted given the general rule
that
complete
diversity
between
and
the
defendants must exist at the time the complaint is filed.
See
2
the
plaintiffs
Appeal: 12-1213
Doc: 13
Filed: 06/20/2012
Pg: 3 of 4
Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, 541 U.S. 567, 570 (2004).
However, Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 provides that “[o]n motion or on its
own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a
party.”
Rule
21
invests
a
district
court
“with
authority
to
allow a dispensable nondiverse party to be dropped at any time.”
Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826, 832 (1989)
(former
version
of
Rule
21).
In
fact,
if
the
nondiverse
defendants are severable and their dismissal will not prejudice
the remaining defendants, the jurisdiction of the court should
be
retained,
defendants.
and
the
suit
dismissed
as
to
the
nondiverse
Id. at 835; see also Koehler v. Dodwell, 152 F.3d
304, 308 (4th Cir. 1998) (recognizing the well-settled rule that
“a [dispensable] party . . . whose presence deprives the court
of jurisdiction may be dropped or severed from the action” to
preserve jurisdiction); Caperton, 585 F.2d at 691-92 (same).
Accordingly, we find that the district court erred by
determining that the “time of filing rule” was applicable and
without exception.
Instead, the court should have determined
whether the defendants sought to be dropped were dispensable
parties,
diversity
whether
dropping
jurisdiction,
these
and
defendants
whether
the
would be prejudiced by their dismissal.
would
remaining
result
in
defendants
Because the record does
not contain full argument on this issue or on the issue of
whether
Hardaway
should
be
permitted
3
to
“correct”
her
own
Appeal: 12-1213
Doc: 13
Filed: 06/20/2012
Pg: 4 of 4
domicile allegations, * we vacate the district court’s order and
remand for further proceedings.
We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
*
“An averment of residence is not the equivalent of an
averment of citizenship, for the purposes of jurisdiction . . .
Allegations of jurisdiction which are defective should be
discovered and corrected in the District Court.”
Texaco-Cities
Serv. Pipe Line Co. v. Aetna Cas., 283 F.2d 144, 145 (8th Cir.
1960).
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?