de Graffenried v. Smithway Motor Xpress, Inc.
Filing
24
MEMORANDUM OPINION re 23 Order Dismissing Case. Signed by District Judge Sharion Aycock on 6/12/2014. (bkl)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
OXFORD DIVISION
MICHAEL A. DE GRAFFENRIED
V.
PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-00009-SA-SAA
SMITHWAY MOTOR XPRESS, INC.
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff filed this action pro se on January 14, 2014, asserting that Defendant terminated
his employment on July 1, 2008 for failing to take a drug test and has since reported Plaintiff’s
alleged failure to other companies with which he has sought employment. Defendant filed a
Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim [7], but the Court found sua sponte that Plaintiff
had failed to adequately allege jurisdictional facts giving rising to diversity jurisdiction and that
it was, therefore, precluded from ruling on Defendant’s motion. The Court granted Plaintiff
leave to amend his complaint no later than April 29, 2014, twenty-one days from the date of the
Court’s Order, with the admonition that failure to timely file an amended complaint would result
in the dismissal of this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Though the time for doing so has now expired, Plaintiff has failed to file an amended
complaint. Instead, Plaintiff has filed a Pleading Motion to Enter All Relevant and Discoverable
Evidence of Factual and Subject Matters [22]. This motion consists of Plaintiff’s stated damages
as listed in Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures as well as nine exhibits relating to the incident at issue.
While “the basis upon which jurisdiction depends . . . cannot ‘be established argumentatively or
by mere inference,’” Illinois Cent. Gulf R. Co. v. Pargas, Inc., 706 F.2d 633, 636 (5th Cir. 1983),
the Court notes that none of the attached documents contains information sufficient to establish
Defendant’s citizenship.
Though one document lists Defendant’s address as Fort Dodge, Iowa, this information
falls far short of the requirements to establish the citizenship of a corporate entity. See Getty Oil
Corp., a Div. of Texaco, Inc. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 841 F.2d 1254, 1259 (5th Cir. 1988) (“In
cases involving corporations, allegations of citizenship must set forth the state of incorporation
as well as the principal place of business of each corporation.”); see also Rios v. Mall of
Louisiana, 2014 WL 1239093, at *1 (M.D. La. Mar. 25, 2014) (finding that “[m]erely providing
a mailing address for [corporate] entities” is insufficient to establish citizenship). Indeed, the
Court previously rejected the sufficiency of this sole allegation when it found that Plaintiff’s
Complaint, which stated that Defendant was domiciled at an address in Fort Dodge, Iowa, failed
to establish diversity jurisdiction.
Whereas Plaintiff has failed to amend his Complaint to allege Defendant’s state of
incorporation and principal place of business, the Court finds that it lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over this matter. Accordingly, this action is hereby dismissed without prejudice.1 A
separate order to that effect shall issue this day.
SO ORDERED on this, the 12th day of June, 2014.
_/s/ Sharion Aycock__________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1
A dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is not a decision on the merits and should be without prejudice.” New S. Fed.
Sav. Bank v. Murphree, 55 F. App’x 717, 717 (5th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b); Warnock v.
Pecos County, 88 F.3d 341, 343 (5th Cir.1996)).
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?