Ivankovic v. Children's Hospital of Wisconsin

Filing 12

ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 1/10/2017 GRANTING 5 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Action DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Jasmina Ivankovic) (jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
JASMINA IVANKOVIC,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 16-CV-1489-JPS

CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL OF
WISCONSIN,
Defendant.

ORDER

On December 12, 2016, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiff’s complaint. (Docket #5). The plaintiff submitted her response to the
motion on January 3, 2017. (Docket #11). The current briefing makes it clear
that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear this matter, and so the
motion must be granted. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and
may only hear cases in two primary categories: 1) those raising issues of
federal law, known as “federal question” jurisdiction, and 2) those between
parties who are citizens of different states and which involve an amount in
controversy exceeding $75,000.00, known as “diversity” jurisdiction. See 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332(a).
The plaintiff has not properly invoked either form of jurisdiction. Her
complaint alleges that she fell while working in the defendant’s facility and
suffered lasting injuries. (Docket #1 at 2-3). This claim implicates no federal
law or the United States Constitution, but is instead a simple negligence
claim based in state law. Diversity is also lacking. The plaintiff pleads, and
the defendant confirms, that they are both citizens of Wisconsin. (Docket #1
at 1 and #6 at 3).

The plaintiff’s only response to the jurisdiction issue is the following:
First off, in regards to the defendant’s claim that the
Court lacks jurisdiction, the plaintiff has always sought to have
her case heard in the [sic] court of law for the last eighteen
years, and was always manipulated and stopped while her
medical condition was declining more and more, including
filing with the Federal Court in 2007.
(Docket #11 at 1). This statement has no bearing on whether her claims are
based in federal law or on the citizenship of the parties, and so is of no
moment to the Court’s findings on subject matter jurisdiction. In light of the
foregoing, the plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed for want of
jurisdiction.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the defendant’s motion to dismiss (Docket #5)
be and the same is hereby GRANTED; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action be and the same is hereby
DISMISSED without prejudice.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 10th day of January, 2017.
BY THE COURT:

J.P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Page 2 of 2