Avent-Bey v. Office of Tax & Revenue

D.C. Circuit

Avent-Bey v. Office of Tax & Revenue

216 F. App'x 2

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedFebruary 1, 2007

DocketNo. 06-7160

StatusPublished

This text of 216 F. App'x 2 (Avent-Bey v. Office of Tax & Revenue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Avent-Bey v. Office of Tax & Revenue, 216 F. App'x 2 (D.C. Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed August 15, 2006 be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, because the complaint did not state a claim based on federal law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, nor was there diversity of citizenship, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See also Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68, 117 S.Ct. 467, 136 L.Ed.2d 437 (1996) (diversity jurisdiction exists only in cases in which the citizenship of each plaintiff is diverse from the citizenship of each defendant).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

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

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed August 15, 2006 be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, because the complaint did not state a claim based on federal law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, nor was there diversity of citizenship, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See also Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68, 117 S.Ct. 467, 136 L.Ed.2d 437 (1996) (diversity jurisdiction exists only in cases in which the citizenship of each plaintiff is diverse from the citizenship of each defendant).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 F. App'x 2, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/avent-bey-v-office-of-tax-revenue-cadc-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack