Turbine Generator Maintenance, Inc. v. American Bituminous Power Partners, L.P.
Filing
22
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING THE DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS DKT. NO. 19 . Court GRANTS AMBITs motion and DISMISSES this case WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Court directs the Clerk to enter a separate judgment order. Signed by District Judge Irene M. Keeley on 8/23/2016. (Copy Counsel of record)(jmm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
TURBINE GENERATOR MAINTENANCE, INC.,
a Delaware Corporation,
Plaintiff/
Counter Defendant,
v.
//
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16CV83
(Judge Keeley)
AMERICAN BITUMINOUS POWER PARTNERS, L.P.,
a Delaware Limited Partnership,
Defendant/
Counterclaimant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS [DKT. NO. 19]
Pending before the Court is the motion to dismiss for lack of
subject
matter
jurisdiction
which
the
defendant,
American
Bituminous Power Partners, L.P. (“AMBIT”), filed on August 9, 2016
(Dkt. No. 19). In its original complaint, the plaintiff, Turbine
Generator Maintenance, Inc. (“Turbine Generator”), alleged that
diversity jurisdiction existed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. At a
scheduling conference held on August 8, 2016, however, the Court
questioned whether diversity of citizenship actually existed among
the parties and directed them to supplement their briefs to address
the question.
On August 9, 2016, AMBIT filed a Clarification of
Corporate Residence (Dkt. No. 18), together with the instant motion
to dismiss (Dkt. No. 19). Following that, the Court ordered Turbine
Generator to notify it by August 15, 2016, whether it opposed
AMBIT’s motion. Turbine Generator did not file a response in
TURBINE v. AMERICAN BITUMINOUS
1:16CV83
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS [DKT. NO. 19]
opposition. For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS the
motion.
“Federal
courts
are
courts
of
limited
jurisdiction”
and
possess “only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.”
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377
(1994). In order to bring a law suit in a federal district court,
a plaintiff must establish that the court has jurisdiction. McNutt
v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. of Ind., 298 U.S. 178, 189
(1936). Jurisdiction cannot be established by consent, and the
court is free to raise the issue of its own volition. Id. “If the
court
determines
at
any
time
that
it
lacks
subject-matter
jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(h)(3). A federal district court may generally exercise two types
of subject matter jurisdiction: diversity jurisdiction and federal
question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331-32.
Diversity jurisdiction exists when the parties are citizens of
different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Id.
§ 1332(a). The Supreme Court has long interpreted this statute “to
require complete diversity of citizenship of each plaintiff from
each defendant.” Rosmer v. Pfizer Inc., 263 F.3d 110 (4th Cir.
2001) (citing Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267
2
TURBINE v. AMERICAN BITUMINOUS
1:16CV83
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS [DKT. NO. 19]
(1806)). A corporation is considered “a citizen of every [s]tate .
. . in which it has been incorporated” and the state “where it has
its principal place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). A legal
entity other than a corporation, such as a limited partnership,
cannot be considered a “citizen” of the state under whose law it is
organized. See Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 189 (1990)
(citing Great S. Fire Proof Hotel Co. v. Jones, 177 U.S. 449
(1900); Chapman v. Barney, 129 U.S. 677 (1889)). Rather, in the
Fourth
Circuit,
the
citizenship
of
a
limited
partnership
is
determined based on the citizenship of all its partners, both
general and limited. N.Y. State Teachers Ret. Sys. v. Kalkus, 764
F.2d 1015, 1019 (4th Cir. 1985).
Here, complete diversity does not exist. In its amended
complaint,
Turbine
Generator
alleged
that
it
is
a
Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business in Cape Coral,
Florida (Dkt. No. 3 at 1). Additionally, it alleged that AMBIT is
a Delaware limited partnership with its principal place of business
in Grant Town, West Virginia, id., a fact that AMBIT admitted in
its answer (Dkt. No. 10 at 1).
AMBIT’s Disclosure Statement Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1
listed its partners as follows: American Hydro Power Company,
3
TURBINE v. AMERICAN BITUMINOUS
1:16CV83
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS [DKT. NO. 19]
American Power Investors, Inc., Pleasant Valley Energy LLC, Aguila
Energy,
and
East
Power
Corporation
(Dkt.
No.
11).
In
its
Clarification of Corporate Residence, AMBIT acknowledged that two
of those partners, East Power Corporation and American Hydro Power
Company, are citizens of Delaware (Dkt. No. 18 at 2). In support,
it
attached
“Entity
Details”
from
the
Delaware
Division
of
Corporations entity search website. Id. at Ex. A, B.
Based on a review of those attachments, the Court concludes
that East Power Corporation is a Delaware corporation, and that
American Hydro Power Company is a Delaware limited partnership. Id.
Without further information concerning the citizenship of the
partners comprising American Hydro Power Company, the Court is
unable to determine its citizenship; the state under whose laws the
partnership is organized is an insufficient basis for determining
citizenship. See Carden, 494 U.S. at 189. Nevertheless, as a
Delaware corporation, East Power Corporation is clearly a citizen
of Delaware, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), thus making AMBIT a citizen of
Delaware
as
well.
Kalkus,
764
F.2d
at
1019.
As
a
Delaware
corporation (Dkt. No. 3 at 1), Turbine Generator is also a citizen
of Delaware. Therefore, because both Turbine Generator and AMBIT
are citizens of Delaware, complete diversity does not exist.
4
The
TURBINE v. AMERICAN BITUMINOUS
1:16CV83
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS [DKT. NO. 19]
Court therefore GRANTS AMBIT’s motion and DISMISSES this case
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
It is so ORDERED.
The Court directs the Clerk of Court to transmit copies of
this Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record and to enter
a separate judgment order.
DATED: August 23, 2016
/s/ Irene M. Keeley
IRENE M. KEELEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
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?