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.)

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 Mar. 24, 2014) (unpublished).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