Court Opinion

ID: 9469701
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:46:58.569557+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:31.198940
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Before CLARK, Chief Judge, GOLDBERG and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
On June 7, 1982, this Court issued an opinion and order in the above captioned matter holding that the record in this case could not support a finding that the action was cognizable under the federal court’s limited subject-matter jurisdiction. Following publication of our opinion, third-party plaintiff-appellants Diamond M Drilling Co. and Halliburton have petitioned this Court seeking leave to amend their pleadings so as to allege the facts necessary to establish federal diversity jurisdiction.1
28 U.S.C. § 1653 provides that “[defective allegations of jurisdiction may be amended, upon terms, in the trial or appellate courts.” This Court has held that this section of the Code is to be liberally construed. Miller v. Stanmore, 636 F.2d 986 (5th Cir. 1981); McGovern v. American Airlines, 511 F.2d 653 (5th Cir. 1975). Although the record now before this Court cannot support a finding of subject matter jurisdiction, the appellants aver that if given the opportunity to amend their pleadings, they can indeed establish diversity jurisdiction.
In light of the liberal amendment provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1653, we hereby grant the appellants’ motion for leave to amend their pleadings.2 We therefore remand this cause to the district court for the *265limited purpose of allowing the requested amendments.
Upon remand, we of course expect that the third-party defendant will be afforded an opportunity to answer any amended allegations and that the district court will then make appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law. Upon completion of these proceedings, the district court is directed to transmit any amended pleadings and findings to the clerk of this Court.
This Court will retain jurisdiction over this cause pending completion of the above-described limited remand. Upon receipt of the supplemental record this Court will make further determinations as is deemed appropriate.
APPENDIX B
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
NO. 80-3896
KATHY L. JOINER, etc., ET AL., Plaintiffs, VS. DIAMOND M DRILLING CO. and HALLIBURTON COMPANY, Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants, VS. DR. C. BABSON FRESH, Third-Party Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.
EDWIN F. HUNTER, Jr., Senior District Judge:
MEMORANDUM RULING PURSUANT TO REMAND
Appellants petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for permission to amend their pleadings so as to allege facts necessary to establish federal diversity jurisdiction. The appellate court granted appellants’ motion and remanded this cause to the district court for the limited purpose of allowing the requested amendments.
The amendments have now been made. The third party defendant (Dr. Fresh) has been afforded an opportunity to answer the amended allegations but has not chosen to do so. Rather, his counsel (Mr. LeDoux R. Provosty, Jr.) has informed the writer that he does not contest the veracity of the amendments nor of the affidavits in support of the amendments.'
Pursuant to the mandate of the appellate court, we now enter findings of fact and conclusion of law on the jurisdictional issue.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Third party defendant, Dr. C. Babson Fresh, was at the time of filing suit, and is now, a citizen and resident of the State of Louisiana.
2. Diamond M Drilling Company, a third party plaintiff, was at the time of the filing of this suit, and is now, a corporation incorporated and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, and is a citizen of that state, and has its principal place of business in the State of Texas.
3. Halliburton Company, a third party plaintiff, was at the time of the filing of this suit, and is now, a corporation incorporated and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware and is a citizen of that state, and has its principal place of business in the State of Texas.
4. The amount in controversy in each instance exceeds $10,000.1
CONCLUSION OF LAW
This Court has jurisdiction over this cause, pursuant to its diversity jurisdiction.
The Order of remand filed in the appellate court on July 12, 1982, noted that it would retain jurisdiction over this cause and that the district court should transmit *266any amended pleadings and findings to the Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. We now do so.2
THUS DONE AND SIGNED at Lake Charles, Louisiana, on this the 12th day of August, 1982.

. Both Diamond M and Halliburton now allege that they are Delaware corporations with principal places of business in Texas and that the third-party defendant-appellee is a citizen of Louisiana.

. We note that the appellants’ motion comes extraordinarily late in the game. The subject matter jurisdiction problems in this case were first raised by the appellee’s brief nearly a year ago. Questioning by this panel during oral argument focused upon the jurisdictional issues. Nevertheless, the appellants failed to seek leave to amend their complaints. Instead, the appellants took the position on appeal that the record was sufficient to sustain the exercise of subject matter jurisdiction. We think that the far more responsible practice would have been for the appellants to have made this motion when subject matter jurisdiction was first questioned rather than waiting until publication of our opinion revealed that they had lost this issue on appeal.

. The original plaintiff settled with Diamond M and Halliburton Company for $300,000. Halliburton and Diamond M now proceed against Dr. Fresh for this amount.

. A copy of the Fifth Circuit’s per curiam opinion of July 12, 1982 is attached.