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

Download PDF
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.

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?