Paquin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

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-