Bristol v. Hughes et al
Filing
43
ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that 40 counterclaimant's motion for summary judgment be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 6/25/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
***
7
GABRIEL M. BRISTOL,
8
9
10
11
Case No. 2:16-CV-705 JCM (CWH)
Plaintiff(s),
ORDER
v.
ELIZABETH JOAN HUGHES,
Defendant(s).
12
13
Presently before the court is counterclaimant Elizabeth Joan Hughes’ motion for summary
14
judgment. (ECF No. 40). Counterdefendant Gabriel Bristol has not filed a response, and the
15
deadline for doing so has since passed.
16
By way of procedural history, Bristol filed the civil complaint that initiated this case. (ECF
17
No. 1). Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which this court denied. (ECF No. 17). Thereafter,
18
Hughes filed an answer and counterclaims. (ECF No. 18). After lengthy discovery disputes, the
19
court ordered dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice for failure to abide by numerous
20
court orders. (ECF Nos. 34, 39). The complaint was stricken from the record. Therefore, the only
21
operative allegations in this action come from Hughes’ counterclaims.
22
A federal court must possess jurisdiction over an action to hear the dispute. Weeping
23
Hollow Avenue Trust v. Spencer, 831 F.3d 1110, 1112. If a court determines at any time that it
24
lacks subject matter over an action, it must dismiss or remand the case as appropriate. See id. at
25
1114 (reversing and remanding with instructions to remand the case to state court, as the district
26
court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims); Tosco Corp. v. Communities for a Better
27
Env't, 236 F.3d 495, 499 (9th Cir. 2001) (“A plaintiff suing in federal court must show in his
28
pleading, affirmatively and distinctly, the existence of whatever is essential to federal jurisdiction,
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
1
and, if he does not do so, the court, on having the defect called to its attention or on discovering
2
the same, must dismiss the case.”).
3
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) permits a party to assert the defense of lack of
4
subject matter jurisdiction by motion. Id. Further, a court may raise the question of subject matter
5
jurisdiction sua sponte at any time during an action. United States v. Moreno-Morillo, 334 F.3d
6
819, 830 (9th Cir. 2003). Regardless of who raises the issue, “when a federal court concludes that
7
it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the complaint in its entirety.” Arbaugh
8
v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514, 126 S. Ct. 1235, 163 L. Ed. 2d 1097 (2006).
9
A court sitting in diversity may exercise “jurisdiction in cases between ‘citizens of different
10
States.’” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Diversity, in this context, requires “complete diversity.”
11
Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. 267 (1806). Essentially, each plaintiff must be a citizen of a
12
different state than each defendant. Weeping Hollow, 831 F.3d at 1112.
13
Here, all of Hughes’ claims arise under state law. See (ECF No. 18). Therefore, the only
14
statute that would afford jurisdiction over this action is 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which details the
15
requirements for diversity jurisdiction. Hughes alleges that both she and Bristol are residents of
16
the state of Nevada.1 See (ECF No. 18). Therefore, the court does not have subject matter
17
jurisdiction over this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The court will dismiss this case for want of
18
jurisdiction. See Arbaugh, 546 U.S. at 514.
19
Accordingly,
20
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that counterclaimant’s
21
motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 40) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED for
22
23
want of jurisdiction.
24
...
25
...
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
Further, Hughes’ motion to dismiss was based inter alia on the theory that Bristol was a
Nevada resident and diversity jurisdiction did not exist over the action. (ECF No. 9). As the court
has stricken plaintiff’s complaint from the record, the operative allegations in this complaint assert
that both parties are Nevada residents.
1
-2-
1
The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case.
2
DATED June 25, 2018.
3
4
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
-3-
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?