1

 The Complaint alleges claims of negligence against the Defendants and fails to include

any specific reference to this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. (See Compl.). However, the

Civil Cover Sheet states the Cause of Action as 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and diversity is checked off in

the box indicating the basis of jurisdiction. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

 

:

KARI VANDERWIELE, : CIVIL ACTION

:

Plaintiff, :

:

v. : No. 05-5085

: 

LOUIS JAMES MURPHY, III, GARY :

LEASURE, MARK MARTIN’S J-MAR :

EXPRESS, INC., CAROLYN BLAKE and :

ROBERT THOMPSON, :

:

Defendants. :

 :

MEMORANDUM

ROBERT F. KELLY, Sr. J. SEPTEMBER 27, 2005

This is a personal injury action arising from an automobile accident in Pine Creek,

Pennsylvania on October 26, 2003. Jurisdiction is predicated solely upon diversity of

citizenship.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (“[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all

civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of

interest and costs, and is between – (1) citizens of different States . . . .”). Examination of the

Complaint reveals that diversity jurisdiction is lacking and, therefore, I will sua sponte dismiss

the Complaint. 

“Lack of subject matter jurisdiction is a ground for dismissal and may be raised at

any time by the parties or by the court sua sponte.” Walls v. Ahmed, 832 F. Supp. 940, 941

Case 2:05-cv-05085-RK Document 2 Filed 09/27/2005 Page 1 of 4

VANDERWIELE v. MURPHY et al Doc. 2

Dockets.Justia.com
2

 The other named Defendants are residents of other states than Pennsylvania. (See

Compl.)

2

(E.D. Pa. 1993)(citation omitted). “[F]ederal courts have an ever-present obligation to satisfy

themselves of their subject matter jurisdiction and to decide the issue sua sponte.” Liberty Mut.

Ins. Co. v. Ward Trucking Corp., 48 F.3d 742, 750 (3d Cir. 1995); see also Pippett v. Waterford

Dev., LLC, 166 F. Supp. 2d 233, 235 n.1 (E.D. Pa. 2001)(“A federal district court has a duty to

consider its own jurisdiction prior to considering the merits of an action.”). “In order to sustain

jurisdiction based on diversity of the parties, there must exist an actual, substantial controversy

between citizens of different states, all of whom on one side of the controversy are citizens of

different states from all parties on the other side.” Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Crown Cork and

Seal Co., 905 F.2d 42, 45 (3d Cir. 1990)(citation omitted). Complete diversity is lacking if “one

of the defendants is a citizen of the same state as any of the plaintiffs.” Walls, 832 F. Supp. at

941 (citation omitted). “The burden of persuasion as to diversity jurisdiction remains at all

time[s] on the proponent of jurisdiction.” Id. at 941 n.3 (citations omitted). 

Upon review of the Complaint, it is clear that there is not complete diversity

between Pennsylvania resident Plaintiff Kari Vanderwiele and Defendants Carolyn Blake and

Robert Thompson who also reside in Pennsylvania.

2

 The Complaint states that Plaintiff Kari

Vanderwiele resides in Coatesville, Pennsylvania. (Compl. ¶ 1). Regarding Defendant Carolyn

Blake, the Complaint alleges that she resides in Danville, Pennsylvania. (Id. ¶ 5). As for

Defendant Robert Thompson, the Complaint alleges that he resides in Farrell, Pennsylvania. (Id.

¶ 6). Since Plaintiff Kari Vanderwiele and Defendants Carolyn Blake and Robert Thompson are

all residents of Pennsylvania, diversity is plainly lacking. See Walls, 832 F. Supp. at 941 (“If one

Case 2:05-cv-05085-RK Document 2 Filed 09/27/2005 Page 2 of 4
3

 Additionally, this Court lacks diversity jurisdiction due to Plaintiff Kari Vanderwiele’s

failure to specifically allege that the amount in controversy exceeds the $75,000 jurisdictional

threshold set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(“[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of

all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $ 75,000. . . .”). The

Complaint demands judgment against Defendants in an amount in excess of $50,000 plus interest

and cost of suit, but does not allege damages meeting the diversity jurisdictional threshold of

more than $75,000. (See Compl.). In light of Plaintiff Kari Vanderwiele’s failure to specifically

allege that the amount in controversy exceeds the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold, and due to the

lack of diversity, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 

3

of the defendants is a citizen of the same state as any of the plaintiffs, complete diversity is

lacking.”). Due to the non-diverse parties set forth in the Complaint, Plaintiff Kari Vanderwiele

has not sufficiently demonstrated to the Court that diversity exists among the parties. In fact, the

allegations contained in the Complaint demonstrate that diversity is clearly lacking. As the

parties are not diverse, this Court lacks jurisdiction and the case will be dismissed.3

An appropriate Order follows.

Case 2:05-cv-05085-RK Document 2 Filed 09/27/2005 Page 3 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

 

:

KARI VANDERWIELE, : CIVIL ACTION

:

Plaintiff, :

:

v. : No. 05-5085

: 

LOUIS JAMES MURPHY, III, GARY :

LEASURE, MARK MARTIN’S J-MAR :

EXPRESS, INC., CAROLYN BLAKE and :

ROBERT THOMPSON, :

:

Defendants. :

 :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 27th day of September, 2005, it is hereby ORDERED that

Plaintiff Kari Vanderwiele’s Complaint (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Robert F. Kelly 

Robert F. Kelly, Sr. J.

Case 2:05-cv-05085-RK Document 2 Filed 09/27/2005 Page 4 of 4