Wright v. Home Paramount Pest Control et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING 6 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Marvin J. Garbis on 3/28/2018. (hmls, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
MILTON F. WRIGHT, SR.

*

Plaintiff
vs.

*
* CIVIL ACTION NO. MJG-17-2926

HOME PARAMOUNT PEST CONTROL,
et al.

*
*

*

Defendants
*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The Court has before it Plaintiffs’ Motion For Leave To
Amend Complaint To Identify And Add Party Defendant [ECF No.6],
and the materials submitted relating thereto.

The Court finds

that no response or hearing is necessary.
This is a diversity motor vehicle accident case.
4, ECF No. 1.

Compl. ¶

Plaintiff is a citizen of Virginia and Defendant

Home Paramount Pest Control (“HMPS”) is a citizen of Maryland.
Id. ¶¶ 1-2.

Plaintiff’s original Complaint includes one more

Defendant, Mr. Ruben Blas, and states that “Defendant Ruben Blas
is a resident of Brookly [sic], New York and is the employee of
Defendant HMPS and the driver of Defendant HMPS’s vehicle which
he negligently crashed into Plaintiff.”

Id. ¶ 2.

Plaintiff has been unable to serve Defendant Ruben Blas,
allegedly because Mr. Blas falsified his identity and/or address
on the document the parties exchanged at the time of the crash.

Pl.’s Mot. at 1, ECF No. 6-1.

At this time, Plaintiff seeks to

replace Defendant Ruben Blas with a John Doe Defendant, whose
identity and address are unknown.

Specifically, Plaintiff

wishes the Amended Complaint to state:
Defendant John Doe is the employee of
Defendant HPPC previously identified as
Ruben Blas whose true identity and address
is unknown to Plaintiff because he provided
false information to Plaintiff at the time
of the crash and because Defendant HPPC has
stated that it does not know Defendant
Blas’s actual address and will not accept
service on his behalf.
Pl.’s Mot. Ex. 4 ¶ 5, ECF No. 6-4.
“It is hornbook law that a plaintiff seeking relief in a
federal court has the burden of alleging and proving the
jurisdictional facts.”
Cir. 1979).

Sligh v. Doe, 596 F.2d 1169, 1170 (4th

Under the circumstances, the Court will deny

Plaintiff’s motion to amend because diversity jurisdiction may
be defeated by John Doe’s citizenship, and the proposed
amendment does not allege his citizenship.

See, e.g., Ancient

Egyptian Arabic Order Nobles Mystic Shrine of N. & S. Am. & its
Jurisdiction, Inc. v. Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge of
Virginia, Free & Accepted Masons, Inc., No. CIV. A. 3:09CV521,
2009 WL 4068454, at *2 (E.D. Va. Nov. 19, 2009)(“While the
Plaintiffs’ naming of John Doe defendants does not destroy
diversity jurisdiction automatically, the Plaintiffs must at
2

least show that the John Doe defendants are citizens of states
other than the Plaintiffs’ states of citizenship.”); Johnson v.
Gen. Motors Corp., 242 F. Supp. 778, 779 (E.D. Va. 1965)
(stating “it is fundamental that where diversity is challenged,
the plaintiff has the burden of establishing that diversity
exists” and dismissing action for lack of diversity
jurisdiction); Staton v. Doe, No. 6:15CV34, 2016 WL 6493418, at
*5 n.6 (W.D. Va. Oct. 12, 2016) (“Staton concedes that the
citizenship of the John Doe defendants is unknown.

His

allegation that ‘upon information and belief, diversity of
citizenship exists” is not sufficient to allege diversity
jurisdiction.’).
The current Complaint, as filed, alleges diversity
jurisdiction.

However, if the Plaintiff now believes that any

of the factual allegations are unsupported or untrue, he must
amend his Complaint to correct those allegations.

In order for

the case to continue in federal court, any such amendment must
not defeat this Court’s diversity jurisdiction.

3

Accordingly:
1. Plaintiffs’ Motion For Leave To Amend Complaint To
Identify And Add Party Defendant [ECF No.6] is DENIED.
2. This action is without prejudice to Plaintiff’s
ability to seek leave to amend his Complaint.
SO ORDERED, this Wednesday, March 28, 2018.

/s/__________
Marvin J. Garbis
United States District Judge

4