Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC v. Siemens Industry Inc.
ORDER ADOPTING 25 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 7 MOTION to Remand filed by Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC. The motion to remand is denied with the amendment as set out. Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 11/10/2015. (cmj)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
OUTOKUMPU STAINLESS USA, LLC,
Agent of Thyssenkrupp Stainless USA, LLC,
SIEMENS INDUSTRY INC.,
Successor in Interest to Siemens Energy &
CIVIL ACTION: 15-00243-KD-N
After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the
issues raised, and a de novo determination of those portions of the recommendation to which
objection is made, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) and dated October 19, 2015, is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court
and Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 7) is DENIED, with the following AMENDMENT:1
After a de novo review, the Court finds that it is plausible (as opposed to merely
conceivable) from the facts alleged that Contract 1034 could affect the outcome of this case.
Moreover, the Court finds that it is necessary to determine whether Contract 1080
supersedes Contract 1034 in order to determine whether the case should be remanded. If
Contract 1080 supersedes Contract 1034, then this Court has no jurisdiction over the dispute
because the parties are not diverse and there would be no federal question jurisdiction. “Federal
courts are powerless to act outside their jurisdiction, requiring them to inquire into the question
of subject matter jurisdiction ‘at the earliest possible stage in the proceedings. Indeed ... a federal
1 While the Court granted Defendant leave to file a Reply to Plaintiff’s Objection (Doc. 28), upon
consideration, the Court agrees with the Defendant’s position such that the need for a further Reply is MOOT.
court is obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be
lacking.’ Black v. State of Alabama, 71 F.Supp.2d 1200, 1202–03 (S.D.Ala.1999), quoting
University of South Alabama v. The American Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir.1999).”
Employers Mut. Cas. Co. v. Evans, 76 F. Supp. 2d 1257, 1259 (N.D. Ala. 1999). Thus, because
this Court has a duty to determine whether it has jurisdiction to proceed, the Magistrate Judge
correctly considered this issue and the undersigned concurs in the determination.
DONE and ORDERED this the 10th day of November 2015.
/s/ Kristi K. DuBose
KRISTI K. DuBOSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?