Tyson v. Quality Homes of McComb, Inc. et al

Filing 109

ORDER requiring the parties to brief the issue of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on 12/15/2015 (ECW)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
SAMUEL TYSON

PLAINTIFF

VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-cv-887(DCB)(MTP)

QUALITY HOMES OF McCOMB, INC.,
and FRESH START TRANSPORT, INC.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
This cause is before the Court sua sponte in order to address
this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

The parties may not

confer subject matter jurisdiction by agreement or consent where
such jurisdiction is lacking.

Renneisen v. American Airlines,

Inc., 990 F.2d 918, 922 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 914
(1993).
The plaintiff’s Complaint purportedly relies on the Magnuson
Moss Warranty

Act (“MMWA”), 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq., to invoke

this Court’s jurisdiction.

However, the Complaint does not appear

to contain adequate allegations of the plaintiff’s jurisdictional
basis for his lawsuit.

A federal district court is not bound by

the parties’ characterization of a case, and is authorized to
disregard such characterizations to avoid “unjust manipulation or
avoidance of its jurisdiction.”

Lyon v. Centimark Corp., 805

F.Supp. 333, 334-35 (E.D. N.C. 1992).

Furthermore, if no federal

question

is

jurisdiction

exists,

there

no

basis

for

finding

supplemental or pendant jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law
claims.

Although the plaintiff claims on page 2 of his Complaint that
he is asserting federal jurisdiction through the MMWA, he does not
allege any warranties that would invoke MMWA jurisdiction.

The

Complaint consists solely of state law claims: (1) breach of
fiduciary duties, (2) breach of contract, (3) breach of implied
covenants

of

good

faith

and

fair

dealing,

(4)

fraudulent

misrepresentation and/or omission, (5) negligent misrepresentation
and/or omission, and (6) unconscionability, none of which mention
a warranty.
The Court granted default judgment against defendants Quality
Homes of McComb, Inc. (“Quality Homes”) and Fresh Start Transport,
Inc. (“Fresh Start”) on November 24, 2014.

The motion was granted

against Quality Homes on the plaintiff’s state law claims for
breach of contract, breach of implied covenants of good faith and
fair dealing, and negligent misrepresentation and/or omission. The
motion was granted against Fresh Start on the plaintiff’s state law
claim for breach of contract.

The plaintiff did not seek default

judgment on the MMWA claim, and did not otherwise assert the MMWA
as the basis for jurisdiction.
On January 30, 2015, Quality Homes filed an “Answer” to the
plaintiff’s Complaint. Notwithstanding the fact that the Answer is
untimely, Quality Homes does deny that this Court has jurisdiction
under the MMWA.

Answer, p. 2.

In addition, on March 5, 2015,

Quality Homes and Fresh Start filed a Motion to Set Aside Default

2

Judgment, in which they assert that the default judgment “should be
vacated and set aside for [the] good cause provisions of FRCP 55(c)
and the inadvertence, excusable neglect and any other reason to
justify relief under FRCP 60(b).”

Motion to Set Aside Default

Judgment, ¶ 19 (emphasis added). Rule 60(b)(4) provides for relief
from a void judgment.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(4).

The defendants’ failure to answer the complaint cannot waive
the jurisdictional requirement. Forsythe v. Saudi Arabian Airlines
Corp., 885 F.2d 285, 288 n.6 (5th Cir. 1989). A judgment by default
may be granted “only for such relief as may lawfully be granted
upon the well-pleaded facts of the complaint.”

Taulton v. Wright,

1995 WL 853119, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 2, 1995).

An entry of

default does not preclude the Court from examining the sufficiency
of the facts alleged in the complaint.

Black v. Lane, 22 F.3d

1395, 1399 (7th Cir. 1994); C. Wright, A. Miller, M. Kane & R.
Marcus, 10A Federal Practice and Procedure § 2688 (“[E]ven after
default

it

remains

for

the

court

to

consider

whether

the

unchallenged facts constitute a legitimate cause of action ....”).
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and absent
jurisdiction conferred by statute or the Constitution, they lack
power to adjudicate claims.
Cir. 1996).

Coury v. Prot, 85 F.3d 244, 248 (5th

Dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is

proper “when the court lacks the statutory or constitutional power
to adjudicate the case.”

Home Builders Ass’n of Miss., Inc. v.

3

City of Madison, 143 F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir. 1998)(quoting Nowak
v. Ironworkers Local 6 Pension Fund, 81 F.3d 1182 (2nd Cir. 1996)).
Because

diversity

jurisdiction

does

not

exist

in

this

case,

subject matter jurisdiction hinges solely on the plaintiff’s MMWA
claim.

The burden “of establishing federal jurisdiction rests on

the party seeking the federal forum.” Stafford v. Mobil Oil Corp.,
945 F.2d 803, 804 (5th Cir. 1991).

Therefore, since this case was

filed in federal court by the plaintiff, the plaintiff has the
burden of demonstrating that MMWA jurisdiction is proper.
Based on the foregoing, the Court shall sua sponte order
briefing of the jurisdictional issue.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants Quality Homes and Fresh
Start shall file a memorandum brief within twenty days from the
date of entry of this Order;
FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff shall file a responsive
brief within fourteen days from service of the defendants’ brief;
FURTHER ORDERED that any rebuttal brief shall be filed within
seven days from service of the responsive brief.
SO ORDERED, this the 15th day of December, 2015.

/s/ David Bramlette
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4