UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

) BI SO LUTIONS , LLC , ) ) P laintif f, )

) v. ) Civil Action No. 09-1477 (RM C) ) STANLE Y CAM P BEL L, ) ) ) Defendan t. ) )
M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION Sha ro n Pratt, Ke ith Ta

y lor , an d Stan le y Campb e ll a re e qu ity me mbe rs of

a Vi rg ini a limit ed liability

company called B ISoluti ons, L L C, eac h holding a 30% equity

interest. On July

23, 2009, the company filed a complaint ag ainst Campbell, Chair of the Board, in the S uperior Court f or the Di str ic t of

Col umb ia , a lle g ingbr e a c h o f c ontr a c t, b re a c h o f imp lie d d uty of g oo d f a ithand fa ir dealing , and bre ach of

fiduciar y duties. See D e f

. ’ s N o ti c e o f

Re mo v a l ( “ D e f

. ’ s N o ti c e ” ) [D kt. # 1 ], E x . 1 (C o mp l ai n t ). M r. C am p b el l , p ro ce ed i n g pr o s e , filed a c ounterc laim, alleg ing, a mong othe r thi ng s, vio la tio ns of 15 U.S .C
. § 1 12 5. He the n n oti c e d r e mov a l to thi s Co ur t, c la imi ngthat th is Court has federa l question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. See Def .’s Notice at 2. For the re a so ns se t f

or th b e low , th is C ourt la c ks jur isd ic tio n and wi ll re mand thi s c a se to S up e ri or Court
. “When it appea

rs that a district cour

t lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a c ase that has been remove d from a state court, the di strict court must rema nd the case.” Re

pu bli c of V

e ne z. v. Philip Morris, Inc. , 2 87 F .3 d 1 92 , 1 96 (D .C. Cir . 2 00 2) ; see 2 8 U
. S
. C
. 1 4 4 7 ( c )

. A d d i t i o n a l l y, “[i] t is well establ i s h ed t h at a feder al cour t cannot ac t in the absenc e of jurisdiction, and that-2-

jur isd ic tio na l iss ue s may

be ra ise d b y

the c ourt su a s

po nte .” Am . Li brar

yAs s’ n v . FCC , 401 F.3d 489, 492 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (inter nal citation s o m i t ted). F eder al district courts have orig inal jur isd ic tio n o ve r c ivi l a c tio ns ari sin g un de r f e de ra l sta tut e s. 28 U. S.C. § 1 33 1. Pla int if f’ s c la ims here all arise unde r state law or common law. Def endant raises a

fede ral c laim in his First Amended Counterclaim, see Def

.’s Notice, E x . 3, but “a c ounterc laim – which appe ars a s p art of the defe ndant' s answer , not as part of the plaintiff’s c o m p l ai n t

–cannot se rve a s the basis for ‘ arising under’ jurisdiction.” Ho lm es G ro up , I nc . v . V or na do Ai r Ci rc ula tio n S

y s. , 535 U.S. 826, 831 (2002). Thus, there is no feder al question jurisdiction here.

Fe d e r a l d is tr ic t c o u rts a ls o h a v e o r ig in a l ju r is d ic ti o n o v e r c iv il a c ti o n s wher e the amount in controver sy

exceeds $75,000 a

nd there is diversity

of citizenship between the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. A c ourt lacks diversity jurisdiction if there are litigants from the same state on opposing sides of the c ontroversy
. See id. § 1 33 2( a )( 1) ; Prakash v. Am. U niv. , 727 F.2d 1174, 1178 n.25 (D.C. Cir. 1984). A corporation is deeme d to be a c itiz en of the state in which it is incorporated and th e st ate whe re i t m ain tai ns it s pri nci pal pl ace of bu si nes s. 28 U.S .C . § 13 32 (c)(1 ). P lai nt if f BI Soluti ons is a Virg inia corpor ation with its principal place of business in Washington, D.C. Mr. Campb e ll i s a

re sid e nt o f V ir g ini a . As bo th pa rt ie s a re c iti zen s o f V ir g ini a , th e Court la c ks div e rs ity jurisdiction, as well. Acc ording ly , this case will be r emande d to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. A memorializing orde r ac companies this memora ndum opinion.

Date : A ugus t 7, 20 09 /s/ ROSEMARY M. COL L YER Un i t edS t at es Di s t ri ct J u d ge