FHMS, Inc. et al v. Medicine Shoppe International, Inc.

Filing 37

OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Medicine Shoppe International, Inc.s Motion to Dismiss the Claims of MISH, INC. Pursuant to Fed.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 21 [ECF No. 15] is GRANTED. 15 Signed by District Judge Henry E. Autrey on 3/22/13. (CLA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
FHMS, INC., SUN & LAKE
)
PHARMACY SERVICE, INC., MISH, )
INC., HENRIETTA F. COLE & DAVID)
L. COLE, MORTON-WUEBBELS
)
PHARMACY, INC., BTT
)
ENTERPRISES, INC., and
)
MADABHUSHI PHARMACY
)
SERVICES, INC.,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
MEDICINE SHOPPE
)
INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)

No. 4:12CV0086 HEA

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Medicine Shoppe
International’s (“MSI”) Motion to Dismiss the Claims of MISH, INC. (“Mish”)
[ECF No. 15]. Plaintiff Mish filed an opposition to MSI’s motion [ECF No. 27], to
which MSI replied [ECF No. 29]. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant
MSI’s motion is granted.
Defendant MSI alleges that the Court does not have subject matter
jurisdiction over the claims asserted by Mish because both Mish and MSI are
citizens of Ohio. Unlike state courts, federal courts are courts of limited, not

general, jurisdiction. See, e.g., Bender v. Williamsport Area School District, 475
U.S. 534, 541, 106 S.Ct. 1326, 1331, 89 L.Ed.2d 501 (1986). In federal court,
diversity jurisdiction is one of the bases for subject matter jurisdiction. Diversity
jurisdiction “requires complete diversity among the parties.” Dominium Austin
Partners, LLC v. Emerson, 248 F.3d 720, 725 (8th Cir. 2001). That is, “diversity
jurisdiction does not apply to cases in which there are citizens from the same state
on opposing sides of the litigation.” 13E Fed. Prac. & Proc. Juris. § 3605 (3d ed.).
Plaintiff Mish is an Ohio corporation, with its principal place of business in
Ohio. This is not disputed. Defendant MSI is a Delaware corporation; however,
Defendant MSI contends that its principal place of business is in Ohio, and
Plaintiff Mish contends MSI’s principal place of business is in Missouri. While
the Court acknowledges that MSI previously designated St. Louis, Missouri as its
principal place of business, the record clearly reflects that on or about July 1,
2009, MSI relocated its principal place of business to Ohio. This is evidenced by
MSI’s previous filings with this Court, the multiple Declarations submitted by
MSI’s Vice President, John Fiacco, and the MSI Franchise Disclosure Documents,
. See ECF No. 29, Exh. 1-7. Based on these filings, it is clear to the Court that
MSI’s current principal place of business is Dublin, Ohio. As such, the Court does
not have subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted by Mish due to the
2

lack of diversity between Mish and MSI.1 As such, Defendant MSI’s Motion to
Dismiss the Claims of Mish is granted.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Medicine Shoppe
International, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss the Claims of MISH, INC. Pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 21 [ECF No. 15] is GRANTED.
Dated this 22nd day of March, 2013.

HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

Because Plaintiff Mish agrees with Defendant MSI that Mish is not a dispensable
party pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 (See ECF No. 27, pg. 1), the Court need not address the
dispensable party analysis.
3