Opinion ID: 2973546
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: The district court exercised subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, because the proper parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.1 This 1 The district court found that plaintiffs fraudulently joined Cheryl McCurdy as Plant Manager in order to spoil diversity. McCurdy was not a party to the original complaint. Plaintiffs -4- No. 05-3498 Smith v. General Motors Corp. et al court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, because this is an appeal of the district court’s March 24, 2005, order denying plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, which order left unchanged the final order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment entered on March 22, 2004. This court reviews de-novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment. Johnson v. Karnes, 398 F.3d 868, 873 (6th Cir. 2005). Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); accord Johnson, 398 F.3d at 873. When deciding a motion for summary judgment, the court must view the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). Any direct evidence offered by the plaintiff in response to a summary judgment motion must be accepted as true. Muhammad v. Close, 379 F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir. 2004). The “mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986) (emphasis in original).