Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company et al v. Infinite Communications, Inc.

Filing 22

ORDER denying 17 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 11/22/2017. (Briggeman, N.)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION No. 5:17-CV-195-D LffiERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, OHIO SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, and EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY, WAUSAU, Plaintiffs, v. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) INFINITE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant. ORDER ) ) ) ) On June 16, 2017, defendant Infinite Communications, Inc., moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction as to plaintiffs Ohio Security Insurance Company and Employers Insurance Company, Wausau [D.E. 17] and filed a memorandum in support [D.E. 18]. On July 7, 2017, plaintiffs Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Ohio Security Insurance Company, and Employers Insurance Company, Wausau responded in opposition [D.E. 19]. On July 21,2017, Infinite Communications, Inc. replied [D.E. 20]. The court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S. C.§ 1332(a)(1) over the action between Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company and Infinite Communications, Inc. See Compl. [D.E. 1] ~~ 1,5, 6, 24--35, 60--66. The court has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) over the claims of Ohio Security Insurance Company and Employers· Insurance Company, Wausau. See Compl. [D.E. 1] ~~ 2-5, 53-59, 67-74; 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Although the better practice would have been to cite 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) in their complaint, plaintiffs' failure ' to cite 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) does not defeat supplemental jurisdiction. See, e.g., Johnson v. Cizy of Shelby, 135 S. Ct. 346,346-47 (2014) (per curiam); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1); see also Exxon Mobile Cor;p. v. Allapattah Servs .• Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 559--67 (2005); Aleman v. Chugach Support Servs.. Inc., 485 F.3d 206, 218 n.S (4th Cir. 2007); Saval v. BL Ltd., 710 F.2d 1027, 1031 (4th Cir. 1983) (per curiam); Shenandoah Mobile. LLC v. Eduro Networks. LLC, No. 5:13CV102, 2014 WL 1232352, at *1-5 (W.D. Va. Mar. 24, 2014) (unpublished). In sum, defendant's motion to dismiss [D.E. 17] is DENIED. SO ORDERED. This 2.2. day ofNovember 2017. Chief United States District Judge .I 2

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?