Wei et al v. Rocky Point International LLC
ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 10/12/2017 DISMISSING CASE without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. (cc: all counsel)(jm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
SEAH CHEE WEI,
Case No. 16-CV-1282-JPS
ROCKY POINT INTERNATIONAL LLC,
The Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction in this action was premised
solely on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Docket #32 ¶ 3).
Section 1332 grants federal courts jurisdiction over actions between
citizens of different states, citizens of states and citizens of foreign nations,
and citizens of different states in which citizens of foreign countries are
also participating. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1)–(3). It does not extend jurisdiction
to cases involving only citizens of foreign states. Sadat v. Mertes, 615 F.2d
1176, 1183 (7th Cir. 1980); Intec USA, LLC v. Engle, 467 F.3d 1038, 1041 (7th
Plaintiff’s recent jurisdictional statement, which Defendant does
not oppose, reveals that this case involves only foreign parties. (Docket
#104). First, Plaintiff Seah Chee Wei (“Seah”) is the duly appointed
liquidator of Traxiar Drilling Partners II Pte. Ltd. (“Traxair”). Seah is a
citizen and resident of the Republic of Singapore. Traxiar is incorporated
in Singapore and has its principal place of business in Singapore. Thus,
Plaintiff and the entity he represents are Singaporean citizens. See 13E Fed.
Prac. & Proc. Juris. § 3604 (3d ed.); JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Traffic Stream
(BVI) Infrastructure Ltd., 536 U.S. 88, 91 (2002) (a corporation organized in a
foreign state is deemed to be a citizen or subject of such state).
Defendant Rocky Point International, LLC (“Rocky Point”) is a
Wisconsin limited liability company. According to sworn testimony of
Dag Dvergsten, manager of Rocky Point, the company’s sole member is
Edgewood International, LLC (“Edgewood”), another Wisconsin limited
liability company. In turn, Edgewood’s sole member is JAMAX, AS
(“JAMAX”), a Norwegian corporation. JAMAX is incorporated in Norway
and has its principal place of business in Norway. This means that Rocky
Point is itself a citizen of Norway. Thomas v. Guardsmark, LLC, 487 F.3d
531, 534 (7th Cir. 2007) (LLCs have the citizenship of their members).
These findings make clear that subject-matter jurisdiction in this
case cannot be sited in Section 1332. Moreover, because the claims in this
case, which arise solely under Wisconsin state law, implicate no other
head of federal jurisdiction, the Court concludes that subject-matter
jurisdiction is lacking.
This conclusion requires the Court to dismiss this action in its
entirety. District courts cannot act without subject-matter jurisdiction.
Gonzalez v. Thayer, 565 U.S. 134, 141 (2012). So important is this principle
that the Supreme Court and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure obligate
district courts to consider sua sponte any potential jurisdictional defects,
even if the parties have disclaimed or have not presented them. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 468, 434
(2011). Indeed, even a case that has been tried must be dismissed if it is
later determined that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
Henderson, 562 U.S. at 434. But whether or not “many months of work on
the part of the attorneys and the court may be wasted,” a failure of
Page 2 of 3
subject-matter jurisdiction has only one permissible consequence:
dismissal. Id. Now that the parties agree that jurisdiction does not exist in
this case, the Court will take that course and dismiss the action.
IT IS ORDERED that this action be and the same is hereby
DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 12th day of October, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
U.S. District Judge
Page 3 of 3
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?