Brandt v. Bay City Super Market

Decision Date27 April 1960
Docket NumberCiv. No. 7801.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of California
PartiesClare M. BRANDT, Plaintiff, v. BAY CITY SUPER MARKET, Springfield Fire & Marine Insurance Company et al., Defendants.

Burton & Hennessy, Yreka, Cal., Belli, Ashe & Gerry, San Francisco, Cal., and Hyman M. Greenstein, Honolulu, Hawaii, for plaintiff.

Fitzwilliam, Memering & McDonald, Sacramento, Cal., for defendant.

HALBERT, District Judge.

Plaintiff has instituted this action to recover damages for injuries allegedly suffered by her as a result of a fall in a grocery store operated by certain of the defendants in Crescent City, California. Jurisdiction is predicated upon diversity of citizenship with the requisite amount in controversy (Title 28 U.S.C. § 1332). Defendant, Springfield Fire & Marine Insurance Company, has made a motion to dismiss the complaint as to it, on grounds which it is not necessary for the Court to consider at this time.

A careful examination of the file in this case leads to the inescapable conclusion that the pleadings in the case are insufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. Since the threshold issue in every case in the federal courts is that of jurisdiction, this issue must be given the Court's initial attention. The issue of jurisdiction must be considered and resolved by the Court on its own motion, even though it has not been affirmatively raised by the parties (Mansfield, C. & L. M. Railway Co. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 4 S.Ct. 510, 28 L.Ed. 462; Warner v. Territory of Hawaii, 9 Cir., 206 F.2d 851). This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and has no jurisdiction beyond that conferred upon it by statute. It is presumed at every stage of a cause that the cause is outside the jurisdiction of this Court, unless the contrary is affirmatively made to appear by the record (Lehigh Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Kelly, 160 U.S. 327, 16 S.Ct. 307, 40 L.Ed. 444; United States v. Green, 9 Cir., 107 F.2d 19). A party seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court must plead, and prove, the existence of facts sufficient to support that jurisdiction (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 8(a), 28 U.S.C.A.; McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 56 S.Ct. 780, 80 L.Ed. 1135; Food Fair Stores v. Food Fair, 1 Cir., 177 F. 2d 177).

From plaintiff's complaint it appears that plaintiff is a citizen of the then Territory, now State, of Hawaii. In the complaint it is alleged "that the defendants and each of them are citizens of California and other states of the United States other than the Territory of Hawaii; that the amount in controversy exceeds Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000.00) exclusive of interest and costs, and, therefore, jurisdiction exists by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1332." Subsequent allegations set forth a claim for more than $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

Certain of the defendants are corporations.

In order to establish the jurisdiction of this Court under Title 28 U.S. C. § 1332, plaintiff must allege and prove facts to show that there is more than $10,000 in controversy, and that none of the defendants are citizens of the same state as plaintiff. Under the law now in effect, corporations are to be treated as citizens both of the state in which they are incorporated, and of the state where they have their principal place of business, when the issue of diversity of citizenship is up for consideration.

It is obvious from the use of the figure $3,000 that the drafter of plaintiff's complaint did not take account of the amendment of Title 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which was effective July 25, 1958. It is in that amendment that it was first provided that for the purpose of diversity of citizenship, corporations must be considered to be citizens of both the state by which they have been incorporated and the state where they have their principal place of business. Plaintiff has alleged that defendants are citizens of California and of other states of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • DeMillard v. Arizona
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Arizona
    • 30 d3 Junho d3 2021
    ...a limited jurisdiction court; this court has no jurisdiction beyond that conferred upon it by federal statute. Brandt v. Bay City Super Mkt., 182 F.Supp. 937, 939 (N.D. Cal. 1960). Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1) requires that a complaint contain a "short and plain statement of the grounds for the ......
  • Cox v. Lee
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Arizona
    • 17 d5 Abril d5 2020
    ...a limited jurisdiction court; this court has no jurisdiction beyond that conferred upon it by federal statute. Brandt v. Bay City Super Mkt., 182 F.Supp. 937, 939 (N.D. Cal. 1960). Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1) requires that a complaint contain a "short and plain statement of the grounds for the ......
  • F & L DRUG CORP. v. American Central Insurance Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • 15 d5 Dezembro d5 1961
    ...180 F.Supp. 15; Adams v. Ralph L. Smith Lumber Co. (D.C.N.D.Cal.N.D. 1960), 181 F.Supp. 729; Brandt v. Bay City Super Market (D.C.N.D.Cal.N.D. 1960), 182 F.Supp. 937; Gobet v. Intercontinental Hotels Corp. (D.C.P.R.1960), 184 F.Supp. 171. The same result would have been reached in Harris Tr......
  • Handy v. Uniroyal, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • 26 d3 Março d3 1969
    ...principal place of business of the corporate defendant prevents the district court from acquiring jurisdiction. Brandt v. Bay City Super Market, 182 F.Supp. 937 (N.D.Cal.1960); Wright v. Governor Hotel Operating Co., 184 F. Supp. 156 (E.D.Ill.1960). This same principle has been applied to j......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT