Gunkel et al v. Robbinsville Custom Molding, Inc. et al

Filing 49

ORDER that on or before November 19, 2012 the Plaintiffs shall file response addressing the evidence to show that the jurisdictional threshold of $75,000 has been satisfied. FURTHER ORDERED that on or before November 26, 2012, theDefendants shall file response to the Plaintiffs position. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 11/12/12. (emw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
BRYSON CITY DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 2:11cv07

ROBERT GUNKEL and wife,
KIMBERLY GUNKEL,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
ROBBINSVILLE CUSTOM MOLDING, INC., )
a/d/b/a ROBBINSVILLE CUSTOM
)
MOULDING and JOHN GARLAND,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment. [Doc. 44].
In the Complaint filed in this matter on February 23, 2011, the Plaintiffs
alleged jurisdiction was based on federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §1331. [Doc. 1 at 1]. The claims alleged in the Complaint, however,
are all state law claims. [Id. at 2-6].
In their Answers, the Defendants denied federal question jurisdiction
and denied that the jurisdictional threshold amount of $75,000 was satisfied
for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. [Doc. 6; Doc. 7]. Each Defendant also
raised jurisdiction as an affirmative defense. [Id.; Doc. 6].

In the pending Motion for Summary Judgment, the Defendant raised the
issue of jurisdiction, noting that no federal question jurisdiction has been
shown. [Doc. 45 at 23]. In response, Plaintiffs’ counsel conceded that the
Complaint contains a “scrivener’s error” which refers to jurisdiction pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §1331, the federal question statute, rather than §1332, the
diversity statute. [Doc. 47 at 2]. Counsel offered to move to amend the
Complaint, but did not do so. [Id.]. Counsel did not address the Defendants’
claim that the jurisdictional threshold of $75,000 has not been met.
Federal district courts have an independent obligation to address
subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte. Ellenburg v. Spartan Motors Chassis,
Inc., 519 F.3d 192, 196 (4 th Cir. 2008). To that end and keeping in mind that
the Court has scheduled a hearing on this matter, the Plaintiffs will be required
to file response to this Order in which the jurisdictional threshold must be
addressed. The Defendants will then be allowed to respond to the Plaintiffs’
position.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that on or before November 19, 2012
the Plaintiffs shall file response addressing the evidence to show that the
jurisdictional threshold of $75,000 has been satisfied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before November 26, 2012, the
Defendants shall file response to the Plaintiffs’ position.

Signed: November 12, 2012