Bosworth et al v. Ford Motor Company et al

Filing 41

ORDER dismissing this case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A separate Judgment will be entered herein. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 4/29/13 (scp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
HATTIESBURG DIVISION
SARA BROWN BOSWORTH, et al.
V.

PLAINTIFFS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12-CV-90-KS-MTP

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

“[F]ederal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having only the authority
endowed by the Constitution and that conferred by Congress.” Halmekangas v. State
Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 603 F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 2010). This Court has “original
jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the
United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and “of all civil matters where the matter in
controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs, and
is between . . . [c]itizens of different States . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
“A federal question exists only in those cases in which a well-pleaded complaint
establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s
right to relief necessarily depends on the resolution of a substantial question of federal
law.” Singh v. Duane Morris LLP, 538 F.3d 334, 337-38 (5th Cir. 2008). Plaintiffs did
not assert a cause of action created by federal law, and their Complaint contains no
references to federal law.
For diversity jurisdiction, the parties must be completely diverse: the citizenship
of each plaintiff must be diverse from the citizenship of each defendant. Owen Equip.
& Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374, 98 S. Ct. 2396, 57 L. Ed. 2d 274 (1978).

According to Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Plaintiff Sara Bosworth, Plaintiff Daniel Higgins,
and Defendant Epic Towing are citizens of Louisiana. Therefore, the parties are not
completely diverse.
On April 10, 2013, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to show cause why this case
should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs failed to
respond to the Court’s order, despite the Court’s explicit warning that failure to
respond would result in dismissal. Therefore, this case is dismissed without prejudice.
The Court will order a separate order in accordance with Rule 58.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this 29th day of April, 2013.

s/ Keith Starrett
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2