1

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 15a0339n.06

No. 13-6627

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

JEREMIAH HUNLEY, )

)

Plaintiff-Appellant, )

) ON APPEAL FROM THE

v. ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT

) COURT FOR THE EASTERN

) DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

SANDVIK MINING & CONSTRUCTION, )

U.S.A., LLC, et al., )

)

) OPINION 

Defendants-Appellees. )

—————————————————————————————————————

BEFORE: BOGGS, ROGERS, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.

BOGGS, Circuit Judge: Plaintiff-Appellant Jeremiah Hunley mined zinc. On December 

8, 2007, his machine malfunctioned. The resulting accident seriously injured Hunley. 

Subsequently, Hunley filed a series of three law suits—one in state court and two in federal 

court. Hunley voluntarily dismissed his first federal suit and his state-court suit, and the federal 

district court below dismissed this case, the second federal suit. Hunley appeals. We affirm the 

judgment of the district court because Hunley failed to establish that the district court had 

jurisdiction over this case. 

Although Hunley filed two earlier cases, we need only to consider the present case. On 

October 25, 2010—the day that he filed his notice of dismissal in state court—Hunley filed a 

second federal case, which is the present action, against (1) East Tennessee Zinc Company, LLC 

(East Tennessee), (2) Tennessee Zinc Services Company, LLC (Tennessee Zinc), (3) Glencore 
2

Limited, Inc., (4) Sandvik USA, (5) Sandvik OY (together with Sandvik USA, “Sandvik”), and 

(6) Detroit Diesel (DDC). In that complaint, Hunley identified himself as a resident of 

Tennessee. Between November 2010 and February 2011, Defendants-Appellees moved to 

dismiss Hunley’s second federal case.

1

 On March 29, 2012, the federal district court issued an 

order dismissing Sandvik and DDC on statute-of-limitations grounds. Hunley now appeals that 

judgment.2

In the same March 29, 2012 order, the district court concluded that Hunley’s complaint 

did not adequately show complete diversity. In particular, the district court held that Hunley had 

not established that one of the other defendants—East Tennessee Zinc Company, LLC—was not 

a citizen of Tennessee for purposes of the litigation. The district court allowed Hunley to file an 

amended complaint. Hunley’s amended complaint adequately pled that East Tennessee Zinc 

Company, LLC was not a citizen of Tennessee for purposes of the litigation.3 But the amended 

complaint declared that Hunley was a citizen of Kentucky, not Tennessee. East Tennessee and 

Glencore moved to dismiss, with East Tennessee offering evidence that Hunley was a citizen of 

Tennessee. The district court denied the motion on the ground that it did “not have sufficient 

information to rule on whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists.” It did note that both East 

 

1 Defendants-appellees also argued that Tennessee’s statute of limitations barred Hunley’s claim.

2 The court also dismissed Tennessee Zinc on workers’-compensation grounds.

3 The relevant paragraph reads, in its entirety: 

Defendant East Tennessee Zinc Company, LLC is a company 

incorporated in the State of Delaware. The sole member of East Tennessee Zinc 

Company, LLC, is Tennessee Zinc Company, LLC, a company incorporated in 

the State of Delaware. Neither Tennessee Zinc Services LLC nor Tennessee 

Zinc Company, LLC has no members or sub-members that are citizens or 

residents of Tennessee. Since East Tennessee Zinc, LLC, and their sole member, 

Tennessee Zinc Company, LLC, as well as any members of Tennessee Zinc 

Company, LLC, are not citizens and/or residents of Tennessee, complete 

diversity exist and the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction in this matter. 

Assuming Nyrstar Holdings Inc. is the sole member of East Tennessee Zinc 

Company LLC, according to the Delaware Secretary of State, Nyrstar Holdings 

Inc. is a resident of Delaware. 

RE 77 at 2, ¶ 3, Page ID # 991. The amended complaint failed to name DDC as a defendant. 
3

Tennessee and Glencore would be “free to raise the jurisdictional argument after the parties have 

a chance to engage in discovery.” Hunley subsequently settled with East Tennessee and 

Glencore.

That Hunley failed to establish that he was completely diverse from East Tennessee Zinc 

Company for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 should have disposed of the case.4 The burden of 

establishing that federal courts have jurisdiction rests on the party asserting federal jurisdiction. 

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377-78 (1994). By filing in federal 

court, Hunley asserted federal jurisdiction. As the district court noted, at no point in the districtcourt proceedings did he establish that he was diverse from all defendants. So the district court 

lacked jurisdiction to consider this case. 

We remand so that the district court may dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

 

4 Although Hunley offered below an additional theory of federal jurisdiction, he concedes on appeal that 

the only basis for federal jurisdiction would be diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Appellant Br. 2.