Cameo, LLC v. Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc.

Filing 95

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction and Defendant's request for fees, costs, and expenses is DENIED. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 7/26/2017.(STC)cc: COR,D,JC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON
CAMEO, LLC,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.

TECHNI-COAT INTERNATIONAL,
N.V./S.A.,
Defendant,

**

In

the

Court’s

**

Action No. 5:14-cv-256-JMH

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

**

Order

dated

**

**

July

3,

2017

[DE

91],

the

Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the case
should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on
the basis that the plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [DE 86] destroyed
diversity jurisdiction for this Court.

Plaintiff concedes the

alien citizenship of both parties in its response to the show cause
order

and

admits

the

case

jurisdiction [DE 92 p. 9].

must

be

dismissed

for

lack

of

As Magistrate Judge Wier noted, “the

presence of foreign parties on both sides of the dispute destroys
the complete diversity required by §1332(a)(2).”

U.S. Motors v.

Gen. Motors Europe, 551 F.3d 420, 423-24 (6th Cir. 2008).

Thus,

this Court must dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.
Defendant agrees that dismissal is appropriate, but requests
that it be awarded costs and fees [DE 93].

Defendant did not cite

any

case

law

to

support

its

request

that

a

court

jurisdiction may enter an award of fees and costs.

without

Plaintiff

opposed such a request in its Reply [DE 94], arguing that while
there is no Sixth Circuit case law on point, the Ninth Circuit has
prohibited

awarding

attorney’s

jurisdiction to hear the case.

fees

where

the

court

lacks

See, e.g., Skaff v. Meridien N.

Am, Beverly Hills, LLC, 506 F.3d 832, 837 (9th Cir. 2007)(“[a]
court that lacks jurisdiction at the outset of a case lacks the
authority to award attorneys’ fees).
The principle here is a simple one: if a court does not have
jurisdiction to hear the case, a court does not have the power to
enter an award of fees and costs in the case.

The Supreme Court

addressed this directly in 1925, and it remains true today:

“If

the District Court had lacked jurisdiction as a federal court, it
would

have

pay costs.”
(1925).

been

without

power

to

order

the

plaintiffs

to

Smyth v. Asphalt Belt Ry. Co., 267 U.S. 326, 330,

The same is true for attorney’s fees and the requested

“expenses.”
Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein and the Court being
sufficiently advised, IT IS ORDERED that this case be, and the
same

hereby

is,

DISMISSED

WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

for

lack

of

jurisdiction and Defendant’s request for fees, costs, and expenses
be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
This 26th day of July, 2017.