Seaborn v. Michelin North America, Inc. et al

Filing 31

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER, granting 30 Motion to Withdraw; and the Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the Motion to Remand doc. 12 . Signed by Hon. Chief Judge Mark E. Fuller on 2/10/09. (Attachments: # 1 appeals checklist)(vma, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION S H A N E SEABORN, Administrator of the E sta te of GUSTAVO PEREZ LOPEZ, d e c ea se d , P L A IN T IF F , v. M IC H E L IN NORTH AMERICA, INC; e t al., DEFEN DANTS. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C A S E NO.: 2:08cv305-MEF (W O ) M E M O R A N D U M OPINION AND ORDER N o w pending before this Court is the Motion to Remand (Doc. # 12) filed on May 1, 2 0 0 8 by Plaintiff and Plaintiff's Notice of Withdrawing His Motion to Remand (Doc. # 30) f ile d on February 9, 2009, which this Court construes as a motion for leave to withdraw the m o tio n to remand. It is hereby ORDERED that the motion to withdraw (Doc. # 30) is G R A N T E D and the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to terminate the Motion to Remand (D o c . # 12). Arguing that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U .S .C . 1332(a), Defendants Michelin North America, Inc. ("MNA") and Michelin A m e ric a s Research & Development Corporation ("MARC") removed this action from the C la yto n Division of the Circuit Court of Barbour County, Alabama pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1 4 4 1 (a ) on April 21, 2008. A federal court is a court of limited of jurisdiction. Kokkonen v . Guardian Life Ins., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A federal court is authorized to entertain o n ly certain actions which the Constitution or Congress has authorized it to hear. Id. "It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, ..., and the burden of e sta b lis h in g the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction,...." Id. (citations o m itte d ). At any time, the Court may review sua sponte whether it possesses subject matter ju ris d ic tio n over an action before it. See, e.g., Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 4 0 5 , 409-11 (11th Cir.1999) (outlining a federal court's duty to sua sponte consider its own su b jec t matter jurisdiction); Fitzgerald v. Seaboard Sys. R.R., Inc., 760 F.2d 1249, 1251 (11th C ir. 1985) (same); Employers Mut. Cas. Co. v. Evans, 76 F. Supp. 2d 1257, 1259 (N.D. Ala. 1 9 9 9 ) ("[A] federal court is obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte w h e n e v e r it may be lacking."); see also Insur. Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des B a u x ite s de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 704 (1982). For this reason, the lack of a pending motion to remand does not prevent the Court from remanding this case if the Court finds subject m a tte r jurisdiction to be lacking. The parties should be mindful that a plaintiff may not create subject matter jurisdiction w h ere it does not exist by consent or concession. Thus, Plaintiff's statement in his February 9 , 2009 filing (Doc. # 30) is insufficient as a matter of law to create subject matter ju ris d ic tio n . Consistent with other recent decisions and Lowery v. Alabama Power Co., 483 F .3 d 1184 (11th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 2877 (2008), this Court intended to re m a n d this case in the near future because it is not satisfied on the record before it that it has s u b je c t matter jurisdiction over this action. Indeed, the Court will remand this case to the 2 C ircu it Court for Barbour County, Alabama if Plaintiff does not file a stipulation on or before F e b ru a ry 13, 2009, indicating that he is now seeking and was seeking at the time the lawsuit w a s filed and removed damages in excess of $75,000.00, exclusive of costs and fees. DONE this the 10th day of February, 2009. /s/ Mark E. Fuller CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3

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?