Nash v. Sandoz

D. Montana

Nash v. Sandoz

DecidedJanuary 6, 2022

Docket6:22-cv-00001

StatusUnknown

This text of Nash v. Sandoz (Nash v. Sandoz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Montana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Nash v. Sandoz, (D. Mont. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA HELENA DIVISION

CHANTEELE NASH, Plaintiff, No. CV 22-01-H-SEH Vs. ORDER SANDOZ, Inc., and JOHN DOES I-II Defendants.

This case filed on January 3, 2022, asserts diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.! Federal district courts have original diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(3) for civil actions between “citizens of different States [with] citizens or subjects of a foreign state [as] additional parties” if the amount in controversy

' See Doc. 1 at 2.

exceeds §75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.? Each defendant must be a citizen of a state different from each plaintiff.’ A single Defendant is named.* Unidentified “John Does I-II” are also designated as Defendants.* Inclusion of such unidentified “Doe” defendants “destroys [diversity] jurisdiction” in an original federal action.® “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”’ Leave to amend nevertheless will be given.*®

? See Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826, 828 (1989). > See In re Digimarc Corp. Derivative Litig., 549 F.3d 1223, 1234 (9th Cir. 2008); see also 15A JAMES WM. MOORE ET AL., MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE § 102.71, pp. 102-235 to 102-236 (3d ed. 2018) (“Section 1332(a)(3) establishes a requirement of complete diversity between United States citizens, but permits aliens on each side of the dispute as additional parties.”). 4 See Doc. 1 at 2. * Doe. 1 at 2. ° Garter-Bare Co. v. Munsingwear, Inc., 650 F.2d 975, 981 (9th Cir. 1980) (citing Molnar v. Nat'l Broad. Co., 231 F.2d 684 (9th Cir. 1956); Fifty Assocs. v. Prudential Ins. Co., 446 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1970)); cf 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(1) (2018) (providing that “the citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious names shall be disregarded” for purposes of diversity jurisdiction in the removal context). 7 Fep. R. Clv. P. 12(h)(3). 8 See FED. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (“The court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.”); Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Team Equip., Inc., 741 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2014) (“A complaint should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless amendment would be futile.”). -2-

ORDERED: 1. This case will be dismissed on January 28, 2022, unless the complaint is amended to properly plead jurisdiction. 2. Plaintiff's NG to Amend the Caption’ is DENIED as moot. DATED this t day of January, 2022.

SAM E. HADDON United States District Judge

Doe. 3. -3-

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA HELENA DIVISION

CHANTEELE NASH, Plaintiff, No. CV 22-01-H-SEH Vs. ORDER SANDOZ, Inc., and JOHN DOES I-II Defendants.

This case filed on January 3, 2022, asserts diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.! Federal district courts have original diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(3) for civil actions between “citizens of different States [with] citizens or subjects of a foreign state [as] additional parties” if the amount in controversy

' See Doc. 1 at 2.

exceeds §75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.? Each defendant must be a citizen of a state different from each plaintiff.’ A single Defendant is named.* Unidentified “John Does I-II” are also designated as Defendants.* Inclusion of such unidentified “Doe” defendants “destroys [diversity] jurisdiction” in an original federal action.® “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”’ Leave to amend nevertheless will be given.*®

? See Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826, 828 (1989). > See In re Digimarc Corp. Derivative Litig., 549 F.3d 1223, 1234 (9th Cir. 2008); see also 15A JAMES WM. MOORE ET AL., MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE § 102.71, pp. 102-235 to 102-236 (3d ed. 2018) (“Section 1332(a)(3) establishes a requirement of complete diversity between United States citizens, but permits aliens on each side of the dispute as additional parties.”). 4 See Doc. 1 at 2. * Doe. 1 at 2. ° Garter-Bare Co. v. Munsingwear, Inc., 650 F.2d 975, 981 (9th Cir. 1980) (citing Molnar v. Nat'l Broad. Co., 231 F.2d 684 (9th Cir. 1956); Fifty Assocs. v. Prudential Ins. Co., 446 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1970)); cf 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(1) (2018) (providing that “the citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious names shall be disregarded” for purposes of diversity jurisdiction in the removal context). 7 Fep. R. Clv. P. 12(h)(3). 8 See FED. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (“The court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.”); Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Team Equip., Inc., 741 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2014) (“A complaint should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless amendment would be futile.”). -2-

ORDERED: 1. This case will be dismissed on January 28, 2022, unless the complaint is amended to properly plead jurisdiction. 2. Plaintiff's NG to Amend the Caption’ is DENIED as moot. DATED this t day of January, 2022.

SAM E. HADDON United States District Judge

Doe. 3. -3-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Nash v. Sandoz, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nash-v-sandoz-mtd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack