Rudolph, Susan v. Toshiba America Medical Systems, Inc. et al
Filing
6
ORDER that plaintiff shall have until August 7, 2014, to file and serve an amended complaint containing good faith allegations sufficient to establish complete diversity of citizenship for purposes of determining subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 7/10/2014. (jef),(ps)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
SUSAN M. RUDOLPH,
v.
Plaintiff,
OPINION & ORDER
14-cv-240-jdp
TOSHIBA AMERICA MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.,
MINISTRY HEALTH CARE, MINISTRY ST.
MICHAEL’S HOSPITAL,
Defendant.
Plaintiff Susan M. Rudolph brings this civil action, alleging that the court has
jurisdiction because her claims arise under the laws of the United States. Plaintiff alleges that
defendants are responsible for her injuries due to fraud, negligence, and concealment. However,
because the allegations in the complaint do not establish that this court has federal question
jurisdiction, the court will give plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint containing
the necessary factual allegations to establish diversity jurisdiction.
OPINION
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs, Local
150, AFL-CIO v. Ward, 563 F.3d 276, 280 (7th Cir. 2009). Unless a complaint raises a federal
question or alleges complete diversity of citizenship among the parties and an amount in
controversy exceeding $75,000, the case must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Smart v.
Local 702 Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 562 F.3d 798, 802 (7th Cir. 2009). Because jurisdiction is
limited, federal courts “have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter
jurisdiction exists, even when no party challenges it.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94
(2010). Further, the party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing
that jurisdiction is present. Smart, 562 F.3d at 802-03.
Plaintiff states that the court has jurisdiction because “the complaint arises under the
laws of the United States and the issues herein affect the health and economic well-being of its
citizens.” Dkt. 1, at 1. Plaintiff’s case caption asserts claims of fraud, negligence, and
concealment, which do not raise a federal question. The allegations in the complaint suggest
potential claims of medical malpractice and products liability, which also do not raise a federal
question. In her “Applicable Laws” section, plaintiff cites to the Code of Federal Regulations
(specifically, 21 C.F.R. § 1020.33, 16 C.F.R. § 1028, 45 C.F.R. § 46, and 42 C.F.R. § 482.26).
Dkt. 1, at 7-8. However, plaintiff does not allege that these regulations create a private cause of
action. Moreover, the complaint as a whole indicates that plaintiff asserts liability under state
law tort principles.
The “substantial federal question” doctrine provides that state law claims might “arise
under” the laws of the United States if a complaint establishes that the right to relief under state
law requires resolution of a substantial question of federal law. Franchise Tax Bd. of State of Cal. v.
Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 13 (1983). However, “it takes more
than a federal element to open the ‘arising under’ door.” Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v.
McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677, 701 (2006) (citing Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering
& Manufacturing, 545 U.S. 308, 313 (2005)) (quotation omitted). The test for determining the
existence of a substantial question of federal law is whether “a state-law claim necessarily raise[s]
a stated federal issue, actually disputed and substantial, which a federal forum may entertain
without disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial
responsibilities.” Grable at 314. The influence of federal law on the outcome of a tort claim is
not sufficient to support federal question jurisdiction. See Empire, 547 U.S. at 700-701.
2
Here, the meaning of a federal regulation is not at issue. See Bennett v. Southwest Airlines
Co., 484 F.3d 907, 910 (7th Cir. 2007)(noting that “a fact-specific application of rules that
come from both federal and state law rather than a context-free inquiry into the meaning of a
federal law” does not constitute a disputed, substantial question of federal law). In Bennett, the
Seventh Circuit concluded that the presence of standards of care from federal law does not
mean that tort claims arise under the laws of the United States. Id. at 912. Plaintiff’s complaint
alleges that defendants did not conform their behavior to certain federal regulations. Dkt. 1, at
7-8. This does not bring her claims within the purview of federal question jurisdiction. See
Grable, 545 U.S. at 318-19 (“The violation of federal statutes and regulations is commonly given
negligence per se effect in state tort proceedings . . . [it is] improbable that the Congress, having
made no provision for a federal cause of action, would have meant to welcome any state-law tort
case implicating federal law solely because the violation of the federal statute is said to [create] a
rebuttable presumption [of negligence] . . . under state law.”) (citations and quotations
omitted). For these reasons, the court lacks federal question jurisdiction.
With respect to diversity jurisdiction, plaintiff’s allegations do not allow this court to
determine the citizenship of any party. Plaintiff states that she resides in Stevens Point,
Wisconsin. This information is insufficient as “[r]esidence and citizenship are not synonyms
and it is the latter that matters for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.” Hunter v. Amin, 583 F.3d
486, 491 (7th Cir. 2009). An individual’s citizenship is determined by his or her domicile,
which is the place where the individual intends to remain (whereas residency may be
temporary). Dakuras v. Edwards, 312 F.3d 256, 258 (7th Cir. 2002). The law requires that each
party’s citizenship be expressly alleged. As to defendants, plaintiff provides the headquarters and
regional sales offices of Toshiba America Medical Systems, Inc.; and the information given for
Ministry Health Care and Ministry St. Michael’s Hospital is the addresses of their corporate
3
office and location, respectively. The citizenship of a corporation is determined by its state of
incorporation and its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. It is not clear whether
defendants Ministry Health Care and Ministry St. Michael’s Hospital are incorporated. In
alleging their citizenship, plaintiff should be aware that “the citizenship of an LLC is the
citizenship of each of its members.” Camico Mut. Ins. Co. v. Citizens Bank, 474 F.3d 989, 992
(7th Cir. 2007). If any of its members are themselves limited liability companies, partnerships,
or other similar entities, then the citizenship of those members and partners must be alleged as
well. See Meryerson v. Harrah’s E. Chi. Casino, 299 F.3d 616, 617 (7th Cir. 2002) (per curiam)
(“[T]he citizenship of unincorporated associations must be traced through however many layers
of partners or members there may be.”).
Before dismissing this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, plaintiff will be given
leave to file by August 7, 2014, an amended complaint that establishes subject matter
jurisdiction by alleging her citizenship and the citizenship of each defendant.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1) Plaintiff shall have until August 7, 2014, to file and serve an amended complaint
containing good faith allegations sufficient to establish complete diversity of
citizenship for purposes of determining subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332; and
2) Failure to amend timely shall result in prompt dismissal of this matter for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.
Entered this 10th day of July, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge
4
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?