-1-

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Lisa MACALUSO and Robert MACALUSO, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

Melvin J. BOYSEN, Jean A. BOYSEN, 

Thomas J. FASANELLA, and Lucille A. 

FASANELLA,

Defendants.

 

 

Civil No. 11-2971 (AET)

OPINION & ORDER

THOMPSON, U.S.D.J.

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter has come before the Court upon the filing of Plaintiffs’ Complaint [docket # 

1]. The Court has considered the allegations provided in the Complaint and, for the reasons 

detailed below, finds that the Complaint must be dismissed sua sponte for lack of diversity 

jurisdiction.

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs’ Complaint arises out of an automobile accident in which the vehicles of 

Defendant Melvin Boysen and Defendant Thomas Fasanella collided, as a result of which 

Fasanella’s vehicle struck Plaintiff Lisa Macaluso’s vehicle and injured her. (Compl. 2.) 

Plaintiffs allege that Boysen and Fasanella operated their vehicles in violation of various New 

Jersey motor vehicle statutes prohibiting reckless, careless, negligent, or otherwise unsafe driving. 

(Id. at 2–3 (citing N.J.S.A. 39:4-96, 97, 97.2).) Plaintiffs claim that Defendant Jean Boysen 

should be held vicariously liable as a vehicle owner for her failure to supervise Defendant Melvin 

Case 3:11-cv-02971-AET-TJB Document 3 Filed 05/31/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 11
-2-

Boysen. (Id. at 4.) Similarly, Plaintiffs claim that Defendant Lucille Fasanella should be held 

vicariously liable as a vehicle owner for her failure to supervise Defendant Thomas Fasanella. 

(Id. at 5.) Plaintiffs demand damages for Lisa Macaluso’s injuries, pain, and suffering, as well as 

for loss of consortium on behalf of her husband Robert Macaluso. (Id. at 6–7.) 

On May 23, 2011, the Plaintiffs filed a Complaint alleging diversity jurisdiction pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs Lisa Macaluso and Robert 

Macaluso reside in the State of New Jersey, that Defendants Melvin Boysen and Jean Boysen 

reside in the State of New Jersey, and that Defendants Thomas Fasanella and Lucille Fasanella 

reside in the State of New York. (Id. at 1–2.) 

III. ANALYSIS

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires a plaintiff in a federal action to set forth a 

“short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 8(a). Federal courts must determine whether they have jurisdiction even if none of the 

parties to an action have challenged the asserted bases therefor. Packard v. Provident Nat’l Bank, 

994 F.2d 1039 (3d Cir. 1993), cert. denied sub nom. Upp v. Mellon Bank, N.A., 510 U.S. 964 

(1993). There are two traditional bases for subject matter jurisdiction in federal court: federal 

question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. City of Newark v. Lawson, 346 F. App’x 761, 763 

(3d Cir. 2009). Federal question jurisdiction applies to those civil actions “arising under the 

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331; U.S. Express Lines Ltd. v. 

Higgins, 281 F.3d 383, 389 (3d Cir. 2002). This type of jurisdiction exists only if a federal 

question is presented on the face of the complaint. Club Comanche, Inc. v. Gov’t of V.I., 278 F.3d 

250, 259 (3d Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). Diversity jurisdiction applies to “civil actions where 

the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs, 

Case 3:11-cv-02971-AET-TJB Document 3 Filed 05/31/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 12
-3-

and is between [] citizens of different States.” U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Under the generally 

applicable rule requiring “complete diversity,” no plaintiff may be a citizen of the same state as 

any defendant. Kaufman v. Allstate N.J. Ins. Co., 561 F.3d 144, 148 (3d Cir. 2009) (citing 28 

U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) and Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (1 Cranch) 267, 267 (1806)); see also

Pierro v. Kugel, 386 F. App’x 308, 309 (3d Cir. 2010) (stating that diversity jurisdiction requires 

that “every plaintiff be diverse from each defendant”). 

Here, Plaintiffs allege that they reside in New Jersey. Plaintiffs also allege that 

Defendants Melvin and Jean Boysen are New Jersey residents. Thus, the requirement of complete 

diversity is not satisfied. Plaintiffs’ Complaint rests solely on New Jersey state motor vehicle 

statute claims and the tort of negligent supervision and, therefore, fails to present a federal 

question. Because Plaintiffs’ Complaint does not satisfy federal diversity jurisdiction or federal 

question jurisdiction, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and the action must be sua 

sponte dismissed. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, and for good cause shown, 

IT IS on this 31st day of May, 2011,

ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Complaint [docket # 1] is hereby DISMISSED for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction.

_/s/ Anne E. Thompson________

ANNE E. THOMPSON, U.S.D.J. 

Case 3:11-cv-02971-AET-TJB Document 3 Filed 05/31/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 13