RAUSCH et al v. INTUITIVE SURGICAL INC
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins on 3/1/2016. (JLC)
2016 Mar-01 PM 02:46
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
WILFRED RAUSCH, et al.,
INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC.,
) Case No.: 2:15-CV-0818-VEH
In the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated January 21, 2016, this court
Although the parties have not raised this issue, “there is an
obligation on the court to examine its own jurisdiction . . . at each stage
of the proceedings.” Am. Civil Liberties Union of Florida, Inc. v. Dixie
Cty., Fla., 690 F.3d 1244, 1249 (11th Cir. 2012) (emphasis omitted).
The First Amended Complaint alleges subject matter jurisdiction based
on 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), which applies to class actions. Since the class
allegations are to be stricken, it appears that this court may not have
jurisdiction over this matter, as each plaintiff may not, separately, meet
the amount in controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
No later than February 3, 2016, the plaintiffs shall SHOW
CAUSE why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject
(Doc. 54 at 21-22). To date, the plaintiff has failed to file any response to the order.
The defendant has filed a motion to dismiss (doc. 55) based on that lack of a
“[W]here jurisdiction is based on a claim for indeterminate damages . . . the
party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving by a
preponderance of the evidence that the claim on which it is basing jurisdiction meets
the jurisdictional minimum.” Federated Mut. Ins. Co. v. McKinnon Motors, LLC, 329
F.3d 805, 807 (11th Cir. 2003). The plaintiff has failed to meet this burden.
Accordingly, the motion to dismiss will be GRANTED, and this case will be
DISMISSED without prejudice.1
DONE this 1st day of March, 2016.
VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS
United States District Judge
The defendant seeks dismissal “with” prejudice. However, “[a] dismissal for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction is not a judgment on the merits and is entered without prejudice.”
Stalley ex rel. U.S. v. Orlando Reg'l Healthcare Sys., Inc., 524 F.3d 1229, 1232 (11th Cir. 2008).
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?