Home/Third Circuit/Gerald D. Mann, Nancy L. Mann v. District of Columbia, a Government

Gerald D. Mann, Nancy L. Mann v. District of Columbia, a Government

742 F.2d 750, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 20090
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit
DecidedJuly 27, 1984
Docket83-5677
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 742 F.2d 750 (Gerald D. Mann, Nancy L. Mann v. District of Columbia, a Government) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gerald D. Mann, Nancy L. Mann v. District of Columbia, a Government, 742 F.2d 750, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 20090 (3d Cir. 1984).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT

BECKER, Circuit Judge.

This case involves an unopposed interlocutory appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denying a motion by the defendant, the District of Columbia, to waive local rules 1(e) and 1(f), which require participation by local counsel in proceedings before that court and in the submission of pleadings. A prior panel of this *751 court has determined that we have appellate jurisdiction over this order under Cohen v. Beneficial Finance Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949).

We decline to decide the validity of the challenged rules, for it is patent that the federal courts have no statutory (and possibly constitutional) subject matter jurisdiction over this personal injury case. The only conceivable basis of subject matter jurisdiction is diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (1982). But, as Judge Richey has carefully observed in an opinion with which we agree entirely, the District of Columbia is not a citizen of a state for purposes of that section. See District of Columbia v. L.B. Smith, Inc., 474 F.Supp. 894 (D.D.C.1979). Accordingly, we remand this case and direct the district court to dismiss the action for want of subject matter jurisdiction.

Costs taxed against appellees.

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

Related

District of Columbia v. 2626 Naylor Road, S.E.
763 F. Supp. 2d 5 (District of Columbia, 2011)
District of Columbia v. All of Parcel of Land Identified in the District of Columbia as 2626 Naylor Road, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20020 square/lot 5633/0801
District of Columbia, 2011
Brown v. Francis
75 F.3d 860 (Third Circuit, 1996)
Barry Brown Jolie Stahl, as They Are Trustees of the Long Bay Trust v. Leo Francis, as He is the Commissioner of the Department of Public Works Delma G. Hodge, as She is the Commissioner of the Department of Property and Procurement of the Government of the Virgin Islands Government of the Virgin Islands of the United States of America (d.c. No. 92-Cv-00081). Government of the Virgin Islands v. 0.459 Acres of Land Consisting of Following: Parcel No. 6a Estate Thomas Kings Quarter and Parcel No. 9a Estate Thomas, Virgin Islands Long Bay Trust (d.c. No. 93-Cv-00059), Leo Francis, as He is the Commissioner of the Department of Public Works Delma G. Hodge, as She is the Commissioner of the Government of the Virgin Islands Government of the Virgin Islands of the United States of America
75 F.3d 860 (Third Circuit, 1996)
Klahr v. District of Columbia
650 F. Supp. 105 (District of Columbia, 1986)
Acord v. McLaughlin Construction Management Corp.
621 F. Supp. 971 (District of Columbia, 1985)
District of Columbia v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.
604 F. Supp. 1459 (District of Columbia, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
742 F.2d 750, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 20090, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gerald-d-mann-nancy-l-mann-v-district-of-columbia-a-government-ca3-1984.