Cameo, LLC v. Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc.
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
Action No. 5:14-cv-256-JMH
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
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
jurisdiction [DE 92 p. 9].
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).
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
jurisdiction may enter an award of fees and costs.
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
jurisdiction to hear the case.
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:
the District Court had lacked jurisdiction as a federal court, it
Smyth v. Asphalt Belt Ry. Co., 267 U.S. 326, 330,
The same is true for attorney’s fees and the requested
Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein and the Court being
sufficiently advised, IT IS ORDERED that this case be, and the
jurisdiction and Defendant’s request for fees, costs, and expenses
be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
This 26th day of July, 2017.
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?