Wilder et al v. Bainbridge Mid-Atlantic Management et al

Filing 30

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Directing parties to show cause in writing by no later than 6/25/2015 why the case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Peter J. Messitte on 6/18/2015. (nd2s, Deputy Clerk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
6500 CHERRYWOOD LANE
GREENBELT, MARYLAND 20770
301-344-0632

PETER J. MESSITTE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

MEMORANDUM
TO:

Counsel of Record

FROM:

Judge Peter J. Messitte

RE:

Wilder et al v. Bainbridge Mid-Atlantic Management et al
Civil No. PJM 15-418

DATE:

June 18, 2015
***

In the course of reviewing Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, or, in the Alternative, Motion for
Summary Judgment, ECF No. 18, the Court has noticed what appears to be a jurisdictional
defect—in particular, a lack of complete diversity of citizenship among Plaintiffs and
Defendants. (No federal cause of action is alleged and diversity is indicated as the basis of
removal of the case from Prince George's County Circuit Court to this Court).
The Notice of Removal states that Defendant "Silver Hill is and has been a corporation
incorporated in the State of Delaware and has maintained its headquarters and principal place of
business in the District of Columbia." ECF No. 1. Accordingly, Silver Hill is a citizen of the
District of Columbia for diversity purposes.
The Complaint was filed in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County on January 7, 2015 and
removed to this Court on February 12, 2015. ECF No. 2. The caption of the Complaint states the
names and addresses of the five Plaintiffs. Id. at 1. The Court notes that Plaintiffs Charles Wilder
and Carla Jones are listed in the caption as having Washington, DC addresses. Plaintiff Jones's
address includes an apartment number. Nevertheless, the body of the Complaint states that
Wilder and Jones are "residing in the State of Maryland." Id. at 2 (emphasis added). Defendants'
Notice of Removal, by contrast, states that Wilder and Jones "are current residents of the District
of Columbia." ECF No. 1, at 2. If Plaintiff Wilder or Plaintiff Jones was in fact a citizen of the
District of Columbia at the time the Complaint was filed or at the time of remova1,1 complete
diversity of citizenship would not be present, and the Court would lack subject matter
jurisdiction over the case.
When diversity of citizenship is the basis of removal, diversity must exist not only at the time the action was filed
in the state court, but also at the time the case is removed to federal court. See § 3723Removal Based on Diversity of
Citizenship and Alienage Jurisdiction, 14B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Juris. § 3723 (4th ed.).

Accordingly, the parties are directed to SHOW CAUSE in writing by no later than Thursday,
June 25 why the case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Such filing should include
affidavits from Plaintiffs Wilder and Jones under penalties of perjury, and, if Wilder or Jones in
fact claim that they were citizens of Maryland at the time suit was filed and at the time of
removal, copies of tax returns, drivers' licenses, bank statements, and any other appropriate
documentation indicating citizenship in the State of Maryland as of those two relevant times. The
Court will hear argument on this jurisdictional issue as a first order of business at the hearing set
for the Motion to Dismiss.
Despite the informal nature of this ruling, it shall constitute an 0
is directed to docket it accordingly.

f the C rt and the Clerk

PEERJ MESSITTE
UNITED S ATE DISTRICT JUDGE
cc:

Court File