American Motorists Insurance Co., and St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Cross-Appellees v. American Employers' Insurance Company, Cross-Appellant

Fifth Circuit

American Motorists Insurance Co., and St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Cross-Appellees v. American Employers' Insurance Company, Cross-Appellant

600 F.2d 15, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 12714

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedAugust 3, 1979

Docket78-3043

StatusPublished

Cited by83 cases

This text of 600 F.2d 15 (American Motorists Insurance Co., and St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Cross-Appellees v. American Employers' Insurance Company, Cross-Appellant) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

American Motorists Insurance Co., and St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Cross-Appellees v. American Employers' Insurance Company, Cross-Appellant, 600 F.2d 15, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 12714 (5th Cir. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The parties in this action, three insurance companies, each contributed funds in settlement of a tort action brought against their common insured. Two of the companies then brought this declaratory judgment action against the third to determine the companies’ respective liabilities under the settlement agreement. The district court entered a judgment from which the plaintiffs appeal.

This court sua sponte raises a question concerning its subject matter jurisdiction. The alleged jurisdictional basis for this action is diversity of citizenship. When jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the plaintiff’s complaint must specifically allege each party’s citizenship, and these allegations must show that the plaintiff and defendant are citizens of different states. McGovern v. American Airlines, Inc., 511 F.2d 653 (5th Cir. 1975).

In this case the plaintiffs’ complaint simply alleged that all three parties were “foreign corporations” which were “licensed to do business and doing business in Louisiana.” It failed, however, to specify the citizenship of the parties. 1 Because of this defect in the pleadings, we cannot tell if in fact the parties are diverse. Accordingly, we remand the case to the district court for it to determine if there is jurisdiction. It can do this by giving the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their defective pleadings. See 28 U.S.C. § 1653. Of course, if the amendments show that there is no diversity of citizenship, the district court must dismiss the action.

REMANDED.

1

. For purposes of determining diversity of citizenship a corporation is deemed “a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c). The plaintiffs are required to provide this information in their pleadings.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The parties in this action, three insurance companies, each contributed funds in settlement of a tort action brought against their common insured. Two of the companies then brought this declaratory judgment action against the third to determine the companies’ respective liabilities under the settlement agreement. The district court entered a judgment from which the plaintiffs appeal.

This court sua sponte raises a question concerning its subject matter jurisdiction. The alleged jurisdictional basis for this action is diversity of citizenship. When jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the plaintiff’s complaint must specifically allege each party’s citizenship, and these allegations must show that the plaintiff and defendant are citizens of different states. McGovern v. American Airlines, Inc., 511 F.2d 653 (5th Cir. 1975).

In this case the plaintiffs’ complaint simply alleged that all three parties were “foreign corporations” which were “licensed to do business and doing business in Louisiana.” It failed, however, to specify the citizenship of the parties. 1 Because of this defect in the pleadings, we cannot tell if in fact the parties are diverse. Accordingly, we remand the case to the district court for it to determine if there is jurisdiction. It can do this by giving the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their defective pleadings. See 28 U.S.C. § 1653. Of course, if the amendments show that there is no diversity of citizenship, the district court must dismiss the action.

REMANDED.

1

. For purposes of determining diversity of citizenship a corporation is deemed “a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c). The plaintiffs are required to provide this information in their pleadings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

600 F.2d 15, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 12714, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-motorists-insurance-co-and-st-paul-fire-marine-insurance-co-ca5-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack