Mid-Continent Casualty Company v. Federal Insurance Company

• Court: District Court, N.D. Texas
• Decided: September 24, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-02506
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

MID-CONTINENT CASUALTY § C OMPANY, § § Plaintiff, § § V. § No. 3:25-cv-2506-S-BN § FEDERAL INSURANCE § COMPANY, § § Defendant. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AND NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY REGARDING SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION The federal courts’ jurisdiction is limited, and they generally may only hear a case of this nature if it involves a question of federal law or where diversity of citizenship exists between the parties. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. Due to the limited nature of the federal courts’ jurisdiction, “[t]he burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction in federal court rests on the party seeking to invoke it.” St. Paul Reinsurance Co., Ltd. v. Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253 (5th Cir. 1998) (footnote omitted). But the Court has an independent duty to ensure that there is subject matter jurisdiction. See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583-84 (1999). “A defect in the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction ... may be raised at any time by the parties or the court itself and cannot be waived.” Hayes v. Gulf Oil Corp., 821 F.2d 285, 290-91 (5th Cir. 1987). “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 is the only basis for federal

subject matter jurisdiction that Plaintiff Mid-Continent Casualty Company (“Mid- Continent”) invokes in its Original Complaint. See Dkt. No. 1 at 2-3. For diversity jurisdiction purposes, “a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of every State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its principal place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).

But, if a party is an unincorporated association, “the citizenship of each member must be considered.” Getty Oil Corp. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 841 F.2d 1254, 1258 (5th Cir. 1988). In its Original Complaint, Mid-Continent pleads that it is “an insurance company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Ohio, having its principal place of business in Tulsa, Oklahoma.” Dkt. No. 1 at 2. And it pleads that Defendant Federal Insurance Company is “an insurance company organized and

existing under the laws of the State of Indiana, having a principal place of business in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey.” Id. But Mid-Continent does not clarify whether it and Federal Insurance Company are corporations or unincorporated entities. If either party is not incorporated, then Mid-Continent must allege the citizenship of each of the entity’s members. See Getty Oil Corp., 841 F.2d at 1258. And “lack of clarity does not satisfy our requirement of ‘clear, distinct, and precise affirmative jurisdictional allegations.” SXSW, L.L.C. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 83 F.4th 405, 408 (5th Cir. 2023) (quoting Getty Oil Corp., 841 F.2d at 1259). Because Mid-Continent’s Complaint does not specify the type of corporate entity that each party is, it does not meet the pleading standard required to invoke diversity jurisdiction. And so, because Mid-Continent, as the party invoking the Court’s subject- matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, has not adequately alleged either party’s citizenship, it must file a written response to this Order to properly plead the citizenship of all parties by October 8, 2025. Failure to do so will result in a recommendation of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(8). SO ORDERED. DATED: September 24, 2025

DAVID L. HORAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE