Progressive Gulf Insurance Company v. Harris

• Court: District Court, S.D. Mississippi
• Decided: November 20, 2023
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00231
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION

PROGRESSIVE GULF INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v. CAUSE NO. 3:23-CV-231-CWR-FKB

CHRISTIAN HARRIS, RANADA WARD, CHRISTIAN NUNNERY, ARMANDO MARGAN, individually and on behalf of I.M., a minor, BLACDADI LLC, and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-10,

Defendants.

ORDER Before the Court are plaintiff Progressive Gulf Insurance Company’s motions for default judgment against defendants Christian Harris, Ranada Ward, Christian Nunnery, Armando Margan, individually and on behalf of I.M., a minor, and Blacdadi LLC. Docket Nos. 27–32. Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter, the case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and the motions for default judgment are MOOT. “Deciding [a] motion for default judgment begins, as it must, by examining the Court’s jurisdiction.” Wattiker v. Elsenbary Enters., No. 3:22-CV-940, 2012 WL 5167023, at *3 (N.D. Tex. May 19, 2023); see also Kokkonen v. Guardian of Life Ins., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (explaining that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction). This Court, thus, has “the duty to examine the basis for [its] subject matter jurisdiction, doing so on [its] own motion if necessary.” Lewis v. Hunt, 492 F.3d 565, 568 (5th Cir. 2007). Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over (1) federal questions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331; and (2) civil actions between citizens of different states where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, see id. § 1332(a). The Court must dismiss a

case in the absence of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Here, Progressive Gulf does not present a federal question, nor does it adequately assert diversity jurisdiction. Although complete diversity is alleged to exist between Progressive Gulf and the defendants, Progressive Gulf failed to plead any amount in controversy. The burden of alleging jurisdiction belongs to Progressive Gulf. See Howery v. Allstate Ins., 243 F.3d 912, 916 (5th Cir. 2001) (explaining that federal courts must presume a suit is beyond their limited jurisdiction until the “party seeking the federal forum” proves

otherwise). Progressive Gulf failed to satisfy its burden. The Court, therefore, concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to decide this matter. Accordingly, the case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and Progressive Gulf’s motions for default judgment are MOOT. A separate Final Judgment shall issue. SO ORDERED, this the 20th day of November, 2023. s/ Carlton W. Reeves UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE