Johnson v. Yum! Brands, Inc. et al

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Greg N. Stivers on 10/27/15: All claims DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE cc: Counsel (DJT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
PADUCAH DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-CV-201-GNS-LLK

MELISSA R. JOHNSON

PLAINTIFF

V.

YUM! BRANDS, INC. d/b/a TACO BELL;
YUM! BRANDS, INC.;
TACO BELL CORPORATION; and
TACO BELL OF AMERICA, LLC

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Court’s sua sponte motion to determine whether
subject matter jurisdiction exists. Based upon the Court’s review of the Complaint, the parties
are not diverse as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Because there is no other basis for jurisdiction,
the Court will dismiss all claims asserted in the Complaint without prejudice due to lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.
I.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

As alleged in the Complaint, Plaintiff Melissa R. Johnson (“Johnson”) is a resident of
Kentucky. (Compl. ¶ 1, DN 1). Defendant Yum! Brands, Inc. d/b/a Taco Bell (“Taco Bell”) has
is principal place of business in Kentucky, which Defendants deny. (Compl. ¶ 2; Answer ¶ 2,
DN 8). Defendant Yum! Brands, Inc. (“Yum! Brands”) is a foreign corporation but has its
principal place of business in Kentucky, which Defendants admit. (Compl. ¶ 3, Answer ¶ 3).
Defendant Taco Bell Corporation (“Taco Bell Corporation”) is incorporated and has its principal
place of business in California, which Defendants admit. (Compl. ¶ 4; Answer ¶ 4). Taco Bell

of America, LLC (“Taco Bell of America”) is a limited liability company organized in Delaware
but with its principal place of business in California, which Defendants admit. (Compl. ¶ 5;
Answer ¶ 5). Johnson alleges that her damages exceed the jurisdictional limits of the Court.
(Compl. ¶ 6).
On April 12, 2015, Johnson alleges that she purchased food from Defendants at a
restaurant located in Hopkinsville, Kentucky. (Compl. ¶ 12). Unbeknownst to Johnson, there
was a piece of plastic in the food, and she was injured when she attempted to consume the food.
(Compl. ¶¶ 13-17). In the Complaint, Johnson asserts negligence and product liability claims
against Defendants. (Compl. ¶¶ 18-28).
II.

DISCUSSION

In relevant part, 28 U.S.C. § 1332 provides that “[t]he district courts shall have original
jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of
$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between—(1) citizens of different States . . . .”
28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a)(1).

The Supreme Court has held that this Congressional grant of

jurisdiction requires complete diversity of citizenship. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S.
61, 68 (1996) (citing Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 267 (1806)). Complete
diversity does not exist, however, when a plaintiff is “a citizen of the same state as any
defendant.” Shea v. State Farm Ins. Cos., 2 F. App’x 478, 479 (6th Cir. 2001) (citations
omitted).
In this case, there is not complete diversity between Plaintiff and Defendants.

As

outlined above, Johnson is a resident of Kentucky, and Yum! Brands is also a Kentucky resident
because it has its principal place of business in Kentucky. See Phelps v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 37

2

F. App’x 752, 753 (6th Cir. 2002). Because complete diversity does not exist, this Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction of this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
III.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all claims be DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.

Greg N. Stivers, Judge
United States District Court
October 27, 2015

cc:

counsel of record

3