Voss v. Steinmetz et al

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL Signed by U. S. District Judge Lawrence L. Piersol on 12/12/08. (LMZ)

UNITED S T A T E S D I S T R I C T C O U R T DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION

DEC

******

* ** * * ** ** ** * ** * ******* * ** ** * ** * ** ** **** **** ***

M E L I S S A YOSS, Plaintiff,

*
*

CIV, 0 8 - 4 173 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL

*
*

*
vs. R I C H A R D S T E I N M E T Z , and CAROL STEINMETZ, Defendant.

*
* *

*
*

*
*

**

*** ******** *** ** * ****** ******** ** ** * ** ** ** ********
P l a i n t i f f , Mel issa V o s s , has c o m m e n c e d an action to g a i n a c c e s s to the D e f e n d a n t s ' p r o p e r t y

and c o n d u c t an i n s p e c t i o n o f t h e p r e m i s e s . I t a p p e a r e d to this C o u r t t h a t an o r d e r for i n s p e c t i o n o f the p r e m i s e s c o u l d b e o b t a i n e d by p r o c e e d i n g u n d e r FED, R. CIY. P. 34 ( c ) and 45 ( a ) ( l ) ( A ) ( i i i ) , in t h e u n d e r l y i n g action o f M e l i s s a V o s s v, S t a t e F a r m Fire a n d C a s u a l t y C o m p a n y , CIY. 0 7 - 4 1 4 3 , and this C o u r t i s s u e d an O r d e r r e q u e s t i n g input from the p a r t i e s as to t h e i r p o s i t i o n s o n the C o u r t p e r m i t t i n g an i n s p e c t i o n o f t h e p r e m i s e s u n d e r FED. R. ClY. P. 34 ( c ) a n d 4 5 ( a ) ( I ) ( A ) ( i i i ) . T h e D e f e n d a n t l a n d o w n e r s h a v e r e s p o n d e d that they d o n o t want to a l l o w access to t h e i r property. C o u n s e l for P l a i n t i f f has r e s p o n d e d t h a t he d o e s n o t wish to p r o c e e d u n d e r FED. R. CIY. P. 3 4 ( c ) and 45 ( a ) ( l ) ( A ) ( i i i ) s i n c e the d i s c o v e r y d e a d l i n e has p a s s e d in the u n d e r l y i n g action. P l a i n t i f f a s s e r t s t h a t R u l e 3 4 d o e s n o t p r e c l u d e an i n d e p e n d e n t action for p e r m i s s i o n to e n t e r o n to land, T h i s C o u r t a g r e e s w i t h that general a s s e r t i o n , h o w e v e r , the fact t h a t R u l e 3 4 d o e s n o t p r e c l u d e such an a c t i o n d o e s n o t a u t h o r i z e s u c h an action b e f o r e this C o u r t w h e n there is no i n d e p e n d e n t b a s i s for s u b j e c t m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n , S e e R e i l l y T a r & C h e m i c a l Corp. v. B u r l i n g t o n N.

R.R, Co., 5 8 9 F . S u p p . 2 7 5 ( 0 , Minn, 1984), T h e lack o f s u b j e c t m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n c a n n o t b e waived,
and m a y b e raised s u a s p o n t e by a c o u r t at any time. S e e G M A C C o m m e r c i a l C r e d i t L L C v. D i l l a r d
D e p ' t Stores, Inc" 3 5 7 F.3d 8 2 7 , 828 (8th C i r . 2 0 0 4 ) ; B u e f o r d v. R e s o l u t i o n T r u s t Corp., 991 F.2d

4 8 1 , 4 8 5 (8th C i r . 1 9 9 3 ) . T h e c o m p l a i n t in this i n d e p e n d e n t a c t i o n d o e s n o t e s t a b l i s h d i v e r s i t y o r federa\ q u e s t i o n j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r e i t h e r 28 U . S . c . § 1331 o r § 1332. A c c o r d i n g l y ,

IT IS O R D E R E D that the a b o v e action is dismissed for lack o f s u b j e c t m a t t e r jurisdiction.

Dated this

tZ'day o f December, 2008.
BY T H E COURT:

~

L a w r e n c e L. P i e r s o l United States D i s t r i c t J u d g e

~BuJwJ.u. LftU.~Q,,--..--

2