Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP et al v. Zurich American Insurance Co. et al

Filing 66

Order denying 61 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint & 60 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP, Kelvin Hill. Plaintiff is ordered by 11/24/2015 to file an amended complaint setting forth subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Chief Judge William H. Steele on 11/19/2015. (tgw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
GEORGIA-PACIFIC CONSUMER
PRODUCTS LP, etc., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE
COMPANY, etc., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
) CIVIL ACTION 15-0342-WS-B
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER

The Court previously pointed out several defects in the complaint’s
pleading of citizenship and ordered the plaintiffs “to file and serve, on or before
November 18, 2015, an amended complaint that adequately sets forth this Court’s
subject matter jurisdiction ….” (Doc. 59 at 3). The plaintiffs have not done so.
Instead, they have filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint and amend the
scheduling order. (Doc. 61). The purposes of the proposed amended complaint
are to amend the citizenship allegations, to add new defendants, and to add new
claims. (Id. at 1).
As the plaintiffs have been advised, the Court is powerless to act in the
absence of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 59 at 3). Because the plaintiffs have
not complied with the Court’s previous order, they have not satisfied the Court of
its subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the motion to amend is denied,
without prejudice to the plaintiffs’ ability to seek such relief if and when they
comply with the Court’s order regarding the establishment of subject matter
jurisdiction. The plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss two defendants, (Doc. 60), is
denied on the same basis.

The plaintiffs are ordered to file and serve, on or before November 24,
2015, an amended complaint that adequately sets forth this Court’s subject matter
jurisdiction (and which makes no other changes to the original complaint), failing
which the action will be dismissed without prejudice for want of such
jurisdiction.1
DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of November, 2015.
s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

The Court has reviewed the proposed amended complaint and notes that it is
inadequate to meet the plaintiffs’ pleading burden, in that it does not allege (as previously
advised by the Court, (Doc. 59 at 2)), the citizenship of the decedent. The Court is aware
that the plaintiffs desire to dismiss this defendant, (Doc. 60), but, as the Court has
previously noted, “subject matter jurisdiction is ordinarily tested as of the time of filing
the complaint.” (Doc. 59 at 3 n.3 (internal quotes omitted)).
2