Edwards et al v. Columbia Gas of Massachusetts

Filing 17

Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered. The Court ALLOWS the Deft's Motion to Dismiss - 9 and finding as moot Pltfs' 16 Motion to Amend. Case may now be closed. (Finn, Mary)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
EVELYN EDWARDS, ET AL
Plaintiffs,
v.

*
*
*
*
*
*

COLUMBIA GAS OF MASSACHUSETTS,
Defendant.

Civil Action No. 15-30169-MGM
*

*
*
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
(Dkt. No. 9)
January 6, 2016

MASTROIANNI, U.S.D.J.

Following a November 2012 natural gas explosion in Springfield, Massachusetts, Plaintiffs, a
group of individuals and businesses who reside in Massachusetts and who were affected by the
explosion, filed this suit on October 15, 2015 against Columbia Gas of Massachusetts. (Compl. ¶ 3,
Dkt. No. 1.) Defendant subsequently moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting the court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over this matter because it is a Massachusetts corporation with its
corporate headquarters located in Massachusetts and the plaintiffs are all residents of Massachusetts.
(Mot. Dis. 3, Dkt. No. 10; Aff., Ex. 2, Def.’s Mot. Dis., ¶ 4 Dkt. No. 10-2.) In addition, Defendant

informed the court that there is “no proper legal entity known as Columbia Gas of Massachusetts.”
(Aff., Ex. 2, Def.’s Mot. Dis., ¶¶ 2-3 Dkt. No. 10-2.) Plaintiffs then filed a motion to amend their
complaint to correct the name of Defendant and to substitute a Massachusetts address for the Ohio
address supplied in the original complaint. Though Plaintiffs received an extension of time through

December 17, 2015 to file their opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, they filed no
opposition.
Federal courts have jurisdiction over suits brought pursuant to state law where there is
complete diversity of citizenship between the adversaries and the amount in controversy exceeds a
threshold amount of $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332; Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513 (2006).
Diversity exists “if the plaintiff is a ‘citizen’ of a different state than all of the defendants.” Lundquist
v. Precision Valley Aviation, Inc., 946 F.2d 8, 10 (1st Cir. 1991). A corporation is considered “a citizen
of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of
business.” Id. at § 1332(c)(1). When there is a disagreement among the parties with respect to
diversity, “the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to support allegations of jurisdiction with
competent proof when the allegations are challenged by the defendant.” O'Toole v. Arlington Trust Co.,
681 F.2d 94, 98 (1st Cir.1982). Plaintiff has not met their burden here. Plaintiffs have identified
themselves as residents of Massachusetts and Defendant is both incorporated in Massachusetts and
maintains its “nerve center” in Massachusetts. See Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 599 U.S. 77, 96 (2010).
Where, as here, the only proffered basis for subject matter jurisdiction is “diversity” pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and there is not diversity of citizenship between Defendant and all plaintiffs, and
the court must dismiss the action. The court ALLOWS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. This case
may now be closed.

It is So Ordered.

_/s/ Mark G. Mastroianni________
MARK G. MASTROIANNI
United States District Judge

2