Alexander v. Hopkins
| Citation | 433 F. Supp. 362 |
| Decision Date | 28 July 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV-4-76-24.,CIV-4-76-24. |
| Parties | Maxwell Bryant ALEXANDER, Plaintiff, v. B. P. HOPKINS et ux., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee |
Fred I. Womack, Womack & Mason, Fayetteville, Tenn. and Clinton H. Swafford, Swafford, Davis & Peters, Winchester, Tenn., for plaintiff.
Thomas A. Harris, Milligan, Hooper, Harris & Foster, Chattanooga, Tenn., for defendants.
This is ostensibly a diversity action* for damages for personal injuries. The rule is well settled that the party seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court must demonstrate that the case is within the competence of such a court. Williams v. W. R. Grace & Company, D.C.Tenn. (1966), 252 F.Supp. 821, 8226.
The allegations of jurisdiction herein are defective. It does not appear from the complaint that the plaintiff is the citizen of one state and that the respective defendants are citizens of a different state. Neither does it appear that the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs. The presumption is that the court lacks jurisdiction in a particular case until it has been demonstrated that jurisdiction over the subject matter exists. Ibid., 252 F.Supp. at 8226.
The defendant moved for a dismissal of this action, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter and for the failure of the plaintiff to state a claim on which relief can be granted herein. Rules 12(b)(1), (6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. "* * * Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties * * * that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action." Rule 12(h)(3), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However: "Defective allegations of jurisdiction may be amended, upon terms, in the trial * * * courts." 28 U.S.C. § 1653; Wells v. Celanese Corporation of America, D.C.Tenn. (1964), 239 F.Supp. 602, 604.
All other matters hereby are RESERVED until the jurisdictional issue is determined. The plaintiff hereby is ALLOWED 10 days in which to amend his defective allegations of jurisdiction; otherwise, this action shall stand dismissed thereafter for lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter.
This is a diversity action for money damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained by the plaintiff as the proximate result of the defendants' negligent maintenance of their residential premises. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). The defendants moved for a dismissal on the ground of lack of the Court's jurisdiction of the subject matter and for the failure of the plaintiff to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Rules 12(b)(1), (6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The complaint, as amended, avers, inter alia, that while the plaintiff was " * * * an invited guest on property owned by the * * * defendants * * for a social visit * * * he suddenly stepped in a hole and fell to the ground and suffered * * * injuries. * * *" Additionally, it is alleged that such hole "* * * was not apparent to the plaintiff * * * who was * * * without previous knowledge of its condition * * * and that * * * the defendants maintained their property in a defective and hazardous condition * * * and failed to warn the plaintiff of the presence and danger of such hole even though they knew of its existence. * * *"
Under the substantive law of Tennessee "* * * a social guest at a home is not in law an invitee, but a licensee to whom the owner owes no duty except to refrain from willfully injuring him or from committing negligence so gross as to amount to willfulness, nor to set a trap for him. * * *" Olsen v. Robinson (Tenn., 1973), 496 S.W.2d 462, 4631, citing Walker v. Williams (1964), 215 Tenn. 195, 384 S.W.2d 447. The word "* * * `trap' as now used in this type of lawsuit generally means any kind of a hidden dangerous condition and there need not be any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
PRINTING SPECIALTIES v. INTERNATIONAL PRINTING
...the presumption is that the Court lacks jurisdiction over a particular case until it has been shown otherwise. Alexander v. Hopkins, D.C. Tenn. (1976), 433 F.Supp. 362, 3631. The plaintiffs seek first to invoke the Court's jurisdiction under the Labor Management Relations Act, § 301. 29 U.S......
-
Campbell v. United States, CIV-4-79-41.
...being on the plaintiff to establish that he has properly invoked this Court's jurisdiction of the subject matter, Alexander v. Hopkins, D.C.Tenn. (1976), 433 F.Supp. 362, 3631, the Court hereby ALLOWS the plaintiff 15 days herefrom within which to demonstrate that, as to his claims against ......
-
Good v. Krauss, CIV-2-78-18.
...of this Court, and the presumption is that the Court lacks jurisdiction until the contrary is demonstrated. Alexander v. Hopkins, D.C.Tenn. (1976), 433 F.Supp. 362, 3631, 3. The plaintiffs were required to have included in their complaint "* * * a short and plain statement of the grounds up......