First American National Bank v. Straight Creek Processing Co.

E.D. Virginia

First American National Bank v. Straight Creek Processing Co.

756 F. Supp. 945, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2388, 1991 WL 24712

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia

DecidedFebruary 28, 1991

DocketCiv. A. 3:90CV00580

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 756 F. Supp. 945 (First American National Bank v. Straight Creek Processing Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

First American National Bank v. Straight Creek Processing Co., 756 F. Supp. 945, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2388, 1991 WL 24712 (E.D. Va. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

RICHARD L. WILLIAMS, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Defendants allege, and Plaintiff does not contest, that two limited partners of Defendant Straight Creek Processing Company are citizens of Tennessee. Plaintiff First American is also a citizen of Tennessee. It is the established law of this Circuit that “for the purposes of diversity the citizenship of a limited partnership is determined by considering the citizenship of all its partners, both general and limited.” New York State Teachers Retirement System v. Kalkus, 764 F.2d 1015, 1019 (4th Cir.1985). In the absence of complete diversity, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Plaintiff does not dispute the law, but moves the Court to dismiss the nondiverse parties in order to preserve jurisdiction. In answer to Defendants’ claim that this dismissal might produce subsequent litigation, Plaintiff argues that Straight Creek can be joined as a third party defendant under the Court’s ancillary jurisdiction. The proper scope of ancillary jurisdiction in third-party practice has been fully briefed by the parties.

The Court will not reach the issue of third party joinder, however, because it finds that it has no jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the non-diverse parties. Before the Court can exercise ancillary jurisdiction, it must have jurisdiction over the principal action. See Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure, § 3523, 82 (1984). A finding that the Court lacks jurisdiction deprives it of the power to take action in the case. Stewart v. United States, 199 F.2d 517 (7th Cir.1952). Once a Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction in a case, the only option available to the Court is dismissal.

Neither the convenience of the litigants nor considerations of judicial economy permit a Court to flout the statutory command of diversity. Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 377, 98 S.Ct. 2396, 2404, 57 L.Ed.2d 274 (1978). The Plaintiff cannot remedy a jurisdictional defect with a motion to dismiss.

*947 For these reasons, this action will be DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION

RICHARD L. WILLIAMS, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Defendants allege, and Plaintiff does not contest, that two limited partners of Defendant Straight Creek Processing Company are citizens of Tennessee. Plaintiff First American is also a citizen of Tennessee. It is the established law of this Circuit that “for the purposes of diversity the citizenship of a limited partnership is determined by considering the citizenship of all its partners, both general and limited.” New York State Teachers Retirement System v. Kalkus, 764 F.2d 1015, 1019 (4th Cir.1985). In the absence of complete diversity, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Plaintiff does not dispute the law, but moves the Court to dismiss the nondiverse parties in order to preserve jurisdiction. In answer to Defendants’ claim that this dismissal might produce subsequent litigation, Plaintiff argues that Straight Creek can be joined as a third party defendant under the Court’s ancillary jurisdiction. The proper scope of ancillary jurisdiction in third-party practice has been fully briefed by the parties.

The Court will not reach the issue of third party joinder, however, because it finds that it has no jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the non-diverse parties. Before the Court can exercise ancillary jurisdiction, it must have jurisdiction over the principal action. See Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure, § 3523, 82 (1984). A finding that the Court lacks jurisdiction deprives it of the power to take action in the case. Stewart v. United States, 199 F.2d 517 (7th Cir.1952). Once a Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction in a case, the only option available to the Court is dismissal.

Neither the convenience of the litigants nor considerations of judicial economy permit a Court to flout the statutory command of diversity. Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 377, 98 S.Ct. 2396, 2404, 57 L.Ed.2d 274 (1978). The Plaintiff cannot remedy a jurisdictional defect with a motion to dismiss.

*947 For these reasons, this action will be DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

756 F. Supp. 945, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2388, 1991 WL 24712, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-american-national-bank-v-straight-creek-processing-co-vaed-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack