Haddad v. Hess et al

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 6/30/2014. (kns, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Southern Division

*

KA YED HADDAD

*
*

Plaintiff,

v.

Case No.: GJH-14-01185

*

ALEXANDER

*

JORDAN HESS

*

and
WILLIAM

*

A. HESS

*

and

*

ALI CE CLAIRE HESS

*

Defendants.

*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM

*

*

*

*

*

*

OPINION

This Memorandum and Order addresses Plaintiffs
ECF No. 13; Defendants' joint Opposition to Plaintiffs

Motion to Remand to State Court,

Motion to Remand to State Court, ECF

No. 15; and Defendants' joint Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs

Complaint for Fraudulent Joinder,

ECF No.5,

and supporting memoranda, ECF Nos. 5-1 and 16, and Plaintiffs

Opposition to

Defendants'

Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 14. I find that a hearing is unnecessary in this case.

See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiffs Motion to Remand Case to State
Court is GRANTED and Defendants' joint Motion to Dismiss is TERMINATED.

I.

BACKGROUND
This action arises out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred

on August

19,2010

when the plaintift:

Kayed Haddad

stopped

at a red light and rear-ended

Hess')

ECF NO.2 at ~ 7. The collision

causing

a second collision

collisions

resulted

the vehicles
Maryland

involved

defendants

when

they

"carelessly,
Maryland.

negligent

for negligently
knew

or should

Jd. at

William

entrusting

Jd. at ~ 10. These two

As a result.

property damages

to

Plainti tf filed a lawsuit

in

including

Hess and Alice I-less (collectively

Jordan Hess, for
also named

as

with Jordan Hess as

Jordan Hess to operate the vehicle used in the accident

have

known

of Jordan

and/or

in violation

Hess'

tendency

to operate

of the vehicular

the vehicle

laws of the State of

16.

On April 10, 2014, Defendants
court on the basis of "complete
3.

was

car to be thrust forw'ard in his lane,

Id. at ~~ 18-21. Plaintitf

of his vehicle.

resident,

Jordan Hess ("Jordan

as well as significant

recklessly

negligently,

Alexander

15, 2013 against various defendants,

operation

a Maryland

in li'ont of his.

Jd. at ~ 11.

in the accident.

Jordan Hess' parents,

"Defendants"),

caused Plaintiffs

with the vehicle immediately

state court on August

his purportedly

("PlaintitT'),

by one of the defendants,

in serious bodily injury to Plaintin:

in West Laurel, Maryland

On May 28, 2014,

fraudulent

joinder.

regarding

fraudulent

citizenship

between

diversity

Plaintiff

ECF No. 13
joinder,

jointly removed

~ 14-18.

all of the pm1ies.

* 1 (D. Md. Feb. 5, 2009) (diversity

of citizenship."

filed a motion

however,

the Maryland

state court action to federal

ECF No. I at 1; see also ECF No. 13 ~

to remand

to state court under

This Court need not address

because

there

is a lack

Plaintitrs

of complete

a theory

of

argument
diversity

of

See e,g., Schajler v. Euro Motor Cars, 2009 WL 277625,

of citizenship

Frison v. Ryan Homes, 2004 WL 3327904,

can be raised sua sponte by the district court);

*9 (D. Md. Oct. 29, 2004)

2

(same).

Given

this

Court's
Court

lack of jurisdiction
for Prince

therefore

II.

(diversity

George's

be terminated

County,

or otherwise),
Maryland.

this action will be remanded

Defendants'

pending

to Dismiss

will

court must remand

any

and this case will be closed.

DISCUSSION
Federal

Courts

are courts of limited jurisdiction,

case in which it lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

federal court must "demonstrate

and a district

28 U.S.c.

Consulting. LLe, 460 F.3d 576, 584 (4th Cir. 2006).

S

1447(c); see In Re Blackwater Sec.

Therefore,

the federal court's jurisdiction

a party seeking adjudication

defendant

seeks to remove

matter jurisdiction

a case to federal cOUl1, the defendant

then the burden

omitted).

must simply

"Where

allege

a

subject

Cunningham v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 669 F.

in his notice of removal."

2d 624, 627 (D. Md. 2009).

remand,

citation

in

Strawn v. AT &

over the matter:'

T Afobility, LLC, 530 F.3d 293, 296 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal

Supp.

Motion

to the Circuit

"But if the plaintitT challenges

removal

to 'elemonstrat[ e] that removal

is on the defendant

in a motion

to

jurisdiction

is

proper.

lei. (citing Strawn v. AT & T Mobility, LLe, 530 F.3d 293, 296 (4th Cir. 2008»

(emphasis

in original).

removal

was

jurisdiction

proper

because,

over the case pursuant

District

courts

exceeds

$75,000

diversity

jurisdiction

Defendants
despite

citizens

to exist, however,
citizenship

have not met their burden
Defendants'

to 28 U.S.C.

have jurisdiction

and is between

party shares common
457,461

Here,

over

S

the

Court

lacks

that

diversity

1332(a)(1).

civil

actions

of different

states.

where

the matter

See 8 U.S.c.

there must be "complete

with any party on the other side."

(4th Cir. 1999) (internal citation omitted).

date the suit is filed.

contention,

of demonstrating

diversity,"

S

in controversy
1332(a)(1).

meaning

For

that "no

Mayes v. Rapoport, 198 F.3d

Diversity jurisdiction

is determined

as of the

See, e.g., Porsche Cars N Am., Inc. v. Porsche.Net, 302 F.3d 248, 255-56

3

(4th Cir. 2002) (holding that "a court determines the existence of diversity jurisdiction 'at the
time the action is filed,' regardless of later changes in originally crucial facts such as the parties'
citizenship or the amount in controversy") (citations omitted).
reveal that the parties lack complete diversity.

Here, Defendants' own filings

Specifically, Defendants'

Petition of Removal

indicates that Plaintiff and Defendant Alice Hess are both residents of the state of Maryland. See
ECF NO.1 at 2-3; see also ECF No. 5-3 (Atlidavit of Alice Hess) (stating that "[a]t all relevant
times I have resided in Silver Spring, Maryland").

Because Plaintiff and Defendant Alice Hess

are both Maryland residents, the parties are not completely diverse and this action lacks diversity
See Mayes, 198 F.3d at 461 ("the 'complete diversity' rule clarifies that the statute

jurisdiction.

authorizing diversity jurisdiction over civil actions between a citizen of a state where the suit is
brought and a citizen of another state permits jurisdiction only when no party shares common
citizenship with any party on the other side"). As such, this case will be remanded to state court
for resolution.
VI.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly,

for the aforementioned

reasons.

Plaintiffs

Motion

to Remand

is

GRANTED and this case should be remanded to the Circuit Court for Prince George's County,
Maryland.

Having remanded Plaintiffs

suit to state court, this Court is without jurisdiction to

rule to on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. See ECF NO.5.

As such, I will direct the Court to

terminate that motion and close this case.

lSI
George Jarrod Hazel
United States District Judge

Dated: June 30, 2014

4