Paquin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

D. Montana

Paquin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

DecidedOctober 13, 2021

Docket6:21-cv-00064

StatusUnknown

This text of Paquin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Paquin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company) 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

Paquin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, (D. Mont. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

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

SIENNA PAQUIN, Plaintiff, No. CV 21-64-H-SEH

vs. ORDER STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Defendants.

This case filed on August 26, 2021, 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.’ Several defendants are named.’ Several unidentified “John Does 1-5” are also designated as defendants.’ Inclusion of such unidentified “Doe” defendants “destroys [diversity] jurisdiction” in an original federal action.® _Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3), “[i]fthe 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). 3 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.”). * See Doc. 1 at 2. > Doc. 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)); of 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). ’ 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: This case will be dismissed on October 29, 2021, unless the complaint is amended to properly plead jurisdiction. +h. DATED this _/3° day of October, 2021. Men bhadin . SAM E. HADDON United States District Judge

-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

SIENNA PAQUIN, Plaintiff, No. CV 21-64-H-SEH

vs. ORDER STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Defendants.

This case filed on August 26, 2021, 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.’ Several defendants are named.’ Several unidentified “John Does 1-5” are also designated as defendants.’ Inclusion of such unidentified “Doe” defendants “destroys [diversity] jurisdiction” in an original federal action.® _Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3), “[i]fthe 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). 3 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.”). * See Doc. 1 at 2. > Doc. 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)); of 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). ’ 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: This case will be dismissed on October 29, 2021, unless the complaint is amended to properly plead jurisdiction. +h. DATED this _/3° day of October, 2021. Men bhadin . SAM E. HADDON United States District Judge

-3-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Paquin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paquin-v-state-farm-mutual-automobile-insurance-company-mtd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack