Horton v. St. Peter Villa et al

Filing 68

ORDER denying as moot 51 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. The parties are ordered to file a joint jurisdictional statement by June 5, 2015. Signed by Judge S. Thomas Anderson on 5/22/15. (Anderson, S.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
______________________________________________________________________________
JEAN HORTON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
No. 14-2421-STA-tmp
)
SIGNATURE HEALTHCARE at St. Peter Villa; )
LP MEMPHIS III, LLC d/b/a
)
Signature Healthcare at St. Peter Villa;
)
SIGNATURE HEALTHCARE, LLC; and
)
SIGNATURE CONSULTING SERVICES, LLC,)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT
______________________________________________________________________________
Before the Court is Defendants Signature Healthcare at Saint Peter Villa; LP Memphis
III, LLC d/b/a Signature Healthcare at Saint Peter Villa; Signature HealthCARE, LLC; and
Signature Consulting Services, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 51) filed on March 12, 2015.
Plaintiff Jean Horton has responded in opposition.

Defendants argue that the Court lacks

subject-matter jurisdiction in this case because there is not complete diversity of citizenship
between the parties.
Without reaching the merits of Defendants’ arguments, on May 1, 2015, the Court
ordered counsel for the parties to confer and submit a joint jurisdictional statement identifying
each member and sub-member of Defendant Signature HealthCARE, LLC and Signature
Consulting Services, LLC. This procedure was adopted to allow the Court to determine the
citizenship of each member and sub-member of the LLC Defendants and then assess whether
complete diversity of citizenship existed in the case. The Court set May 15, 2015, as the

1

deadline for the parties to submit their joint jurisdictional statement.

On May 4, 2015,

Defendants filed a notice with the Court that they were withdrawing their Motion to Dismiss. In
light of Defendants’ withdrawal, the Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as moot.
The parties failed to file the joint jurisdictional statement the Court had ordered them to
file by May 15, 2015, presumably because of Defendants’ decision to withdraw the Motion to
Dismiss. However, Defendants’ withdrawal of the Motion to Dismiss is not the end of the
jurisdictional inquiry. “Because subject-matter jurisdiction is an Article III as well as a statutory
requirement, no action of the parties can confer subject-matter jurisdiction upon a federal
court.”1 A party cannot waive or forfeit subject matter jurisdiction,2 and in every case the Court
is “obligated to consider sua sponte whether [it has] such jurisdiction.”3 Despite the fact that
Defendants no longer contest jurisdiction, the Court must nevertheless carry out its own
obligation to determine whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction. Therefore, the parties are still
required to file the joint jurisdictional statement. Their filing is due no later than June 5, 2015.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ S. Thomas Anderson
S. THOMAS ANDERSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Date: May 22, 2015

1

Vander Boegh v. EnergySolutions, Inc., 772 F.3d 1056, 1064 (6th Cir. 2014) (quoting
Ins. Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702 (1982)
(internal punctuation altered).
2

See Gonzalez v. Thaler, 132 S. Ct. 641, 648 (2012).

3

Vander Boegh, 772 F.3d at 1064.
2