Blanchard v. Northway Bank et al

Filing 4

SUMMARY ORDER re subject-matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff to respond as outlined on or before April 3, 2013, showing cause why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. So Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph N. Laplante.(jb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Michael J. Blanchard
v.

Civil No. 13-cv-119-JL

Northway Bank et al.
SUMMARY ORDER
Plaintiff Michael Blanchard, proceeding pro se, filed this
action against Northway Bank, Mortgage Electronic Registration
Systems, Inc. (“MERS”), and ten unnamed “Doe” defendants in this
court.

Blanchard’s complaint alleges, among other things, that

the defendants hold neither his mortgage nor the associated
promissory note, and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief.

No

federal question is presented on the face of the complaint.
The complaint asserts that this court has jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1332 because “[t]he Plaintiff is a resident of New
Hampshire and one of the Defendants [is] a foreign business
entity organized and existing outside of New Hampshire.”
(document no. 1) ¶ 3.

Compl.

Specifically, it alleges that (1)

Blanchard is a New Hampshire resident; (2) Northway is a New
Hampshire corporation with its principal place of business in
this state; and (3) MERS is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Virginia.

There are no

allegations regarding the citizenship of the Doe defendants.

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.

They

possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute,
which is not to be expanded by judicial decree.”

Kokkonen v.

Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Amer., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).

A

federal court must vigilantly police the borders of its
jurisdiction; it is “duty-bound to notice, and act upon, defects
in its subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte.”
Inc., 644 F.3d 62, 67 (1st Cir. 2011).

Spooner v. EEN,

Based upon the complaint,

it appears that this court does not, in fact, have jurisdiction
of this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

That one of the

defendants is not a citizen of the same state as Blanchard does
not matter; what matters is that one of the defendants–Northway–-is.1

This is because “[d]iversity jurisdiction exists

only when there is complete diversity, that is, when no plaintiff
is a citizen of the same state as any defendant.”

Gabriel v.

Preble, 396 F.3d 10, 13 (1st Cir. 2005) (citing Strawbridge v.
Curtiss, 7 U.S. 267 (1806)).

1

It may be the case that one (or more) of the Doe defendants
is also a New Hampshire citizen. The significance of this is not
clear. While “[t]he presence of John Does does not destroy
diversity jurisdiction in cases removed to federal court . . .
[f]ederal courts do not agree on whether John Does are permitted
in diversity cases originally filed in federal court, as this
case was.” Universal Comm. Sys., Inc. v. Lycos, Inc., 478 F.3d
413, 426 n.10 (1st Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). The Court of
Appeals has never directly addressed this issue, and this court
need not do so at this time, either.
2

Blanchard is therefore ordered to file a memorandum on or
before April 3, 2013, showing cause why this action should not be
dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED.
____________________________
Joseph N. Laplante
United States District Judge
Dated:
cc:

March 21, 2013

Michael J. Blanchard, pro se

3