Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_06-cv-00122/USCOURTS-alnd-2_06-cv-00122-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ALBERTO SERRANO, as

Administrator of the Estate

of JUAN-MANUEL MEDINASEVILLA, deceased, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE CITY OF IRONDALE, et al.,

Defendants.

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

CIVIL ACTION NO.

06-AR-0122-S

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before the court is an amended motion to dismiss filed by

defendants in the above-entitled cause. Although the motion does

not challenge this court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, this court

is, as its first item of business in every case, required to

satisfy itself that it has subject-matter jurisdiction because if

it does not it cannot proceed to rule on any intriguing questions

such as which, if any, of the various counts of a complaint state

a claim upon which relief can be granted, the classic inquiry under

Rule 12(b)(6).

The two plaintiffs here invoke only 28 U.S.C. § 1332 as the

basis for jurisdiction in this court. Paragraph 4, the

jurisdictional averment of the complaint, states:

There exists diversity of [sic] jurisdiction under U.S.

Constitution, Art. III § 2, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332 as the

controversy is between a citizen of a state and a citizen

of a foreign country, and the amount in controversy

exceeds the jurisdictional amount of $75,000.00 exclusive

of interests [sic] and costs.

FILED

 2006 Mar-06 AM 11:44

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:06-cv-00122-WMA Document 14 Filed 03/06/06 Page 1 of 3
2

Although this averment refers to a single plaintiff and a single

defendant, there are, in fact, two plaintiffs and two defendants.

In order to meet the § 1332 jurisdictional threshold of $75,000.00

in controversy, it is necessary that each plaintiff have a nonfrivolous claim of $75,000.00 or more, and not simply that the two

claims aggregate the jurisdictional amount. The court cannot

ascertain from this complaint whether each plaintiff really has a

chance of recovering in excess of $75,0000.00. It is difficult for

the court to conclude that the distinct, personal claims of

Elizabeth Parra De Medina are worth $75,000.00, especially

considering that she has no viable claim for loss of consortion

arising from the alleged wrongful death of her husband in Alabama.

See Northern Trust Co. v. Bunge Corp., 899 F.2d 591, 597 (7 Cir. th

1990).

The much greater jurisdictional hurdle for plaintiffs in this

case is the absence of a showing of the requisite diversity of

citizenship. Plaintiffs are apparently calling upon the court to

deduce the citizenships of the defendants. Because the burden is

on a plaintiff to allege facts upon which complete diversity of

citizenship can be clearly ascertained, the court cannot simply

rely on its powers of deduction. The residence of Elizabeth Parra

De Medina is alleged to be Alabama. In other words, if defendants

are residents of Alabama, as the court expects, and Elizabeth Para

De Medina is a resident of Alabama, there is no complete diversity

Case 2:06-cv-00122-WMA Document 14 Filed 03/06/06 Page 2 of 3
3

of citizenship and no jurisdiction under § 1332.

The residence of Juan-Manuel Medina-Sevilla, whose personal

representative is the other plaintiff, is alleged to have been

Alabama at the time of his death, but he is alleged to have been a

citizen of Mexico. There is no additional allegation that decedent

was not “an alien admitted to the United States for permanent

residence”, the pertinent words of § 1332(a). For aught appearing,

decedent had a “green card”, and must be deemed to have been a

citizen of Alabama, in which event there would again be no

jurisdiction under § 1332. See Foy v. Schantz, Schatzman &

Aaronson, 108 F.

3d 1347, 1349 (11 Cir. 1997). th

Because these fatal jurisdictional defects theoretically may

be surmounted by proper amendment, this court will, by separate

order, dismiss the action sua sponte, but with the right to amend

the complaint to remedy the jurisdictional defects.

DONE this 3rd day of March, 2006.

_____________________________

WILLIAM M. ACKER, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00122-WMA Document 14 Filed 03/06/06 Page 3 of 3