Katebian v. Missaghi
| Decision Date | 10 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 18-13379 |
| Parties | Morteza Katebian, Plaintiff, v. Arash Missaghi, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
Plaintiff Morteza Katebian filed this action against several Defendants on October 29, 2018, asserting that this Court has diversity jurisdiction over this case. This has been a very contentious case. Discovery has been completed and the case did not resolve during the dispositive-motion phase of the case. During a status conference with the Court to discuss the status of the joint final pretrial order, Defendants advised the Court they recently discovered that this Court lacks diversity jurisdiction over this action. Thereafter, the Court issued a Show Cause Order and Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. After that motion was briefed, Defendants filed a Motion to Strike, asking the Court to strike Plaintiff's response to their motion. The Court concludes that oral argument is not necessary and shall rule based upon the briefs. For the reasons set forth below, the Court shall deny Defendants' Motion to Strike and shall grant Defendants' Motion to Dismiss because Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of establishing that diversity jurisdiction exists in this case.
Acting through counsel, on October 29, 2018, Plaintiff Morteza Katebian filed this action against the following defendants: 1) Arash Missaghi; 2) Laila Alizadeh, 3) Troy Wilson, 4) Skymark Properties SPE, LLC; 5) Skymark Properties II, LLC; 6) Skymark Properties III, LLC; 7) Skymark Properties Corporation; and 8) Liberty & York Corporation.
Plaintiff filed the action in federal court based upon diversity jurisdiction. (Complaint, ECF No. 1, at ¶ 10) (alleging that "[this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this dispute under 29 U.S.C. 1332 as there is complete diversity between the parties and the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds $75,000.")
Plaintiff's complaint alleges that Plaintiff Katebian "resides in, and is a permanent resident of, the State of California." (Id. at ¶ 1) (emphasis added). Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that all of the Defendants are citizens of Canada. Plaintiff alleges that the three individual Defendants (Missaghi, Alizadeh, and Wilson) are citizens of Canada. (Complaint at ¶¶ 2-4). Plaintiff alleges the citizenship of the remaining Defendants as follows:
The case proceeded through discovery and dispositive motion practice but the case did not resolve. The matter was scheduled for a joint final pretrial conference. During the course of preparing a Joint Final Pretrial Order, Defendants asserted, for the first time, that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action.
Thereafter, this Court issued an "Order To Show Cause Why Case Should Not Be Dismissed For Lack Of Subject Matter Jurisdiction" wherein the Court ordered as follows:
(ECF No. 105).
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction on January 26, 2021, rather than a brief, and they filed it earlier than the deadline set forth in this Court's Show Cause Order. (ECF No. 106).
Plaintiff filed his response to that motion on February 19, 2021, and filed "corrected" and amended filings on February 21st, and 22nd. (ECF Nos. 108, 109, 110).
On March 4, 2021, Defendants filed a Motion to Strike (ECF No. 111) wherein they ask this Court to strike Plaintiff's response brief and impose sanctions. Plaintiff filed a brief opposing that motion.
On March 4, 2021, Defendants filed a "Motion To Strike Plaintiffs' Untimely And Overlong Response To Defendants' Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Response To Plaintiff's Motion For Sanctions Under 28 U.S.C. 1927, And For Other Relief." (ECF No. 111).
This Court's Show Cause Order directed Defendants to file a brief of no more than 20 pages (Show Cause Order, supra). That Order further directed Plaintiff to file a brief responding to those arguments no later than February 19, 2021.
Rather than file a brief addressing the jurisdictional issue, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, and filed it before the Court's deadline. Plaintiff then filed a response brief on February 19, 2021, and a corrected version of a few days later.
Defendants assert that Plaintiff's briefs should be stricken as untimely, because they were not filed within 21 days of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
The way these proceedings unfolded, Plaintiff's brief filed on February 19, 2021, is not untimely as it was first filed on the date ordered by the Court.
This Court's Show Cause Order provided that Plaintiff's response brief was to be no longer than 20 pages long.
Defendants' Motion to Strike asks the Court to strike Plaintiff's "overlong" response brief because it was "over 20 pages long." (Defs.' Br. at 2).
In response to this argument, Plaintiff asserts that "[t]he text of Plaintiff's Response [Docket No. 108] and his Corrected Response [Docket No. 109] is precisely 20 pages," and it is only the "text portion of a brief" that should be measured to determine the length of the brief. (Pl.'s Br. at 6). Plaintiff suggests that Defendants should be sanctioned under § 1927 for asserting that his brief exceeded 20 pages. (Id. at n.4).
Plaintiff filed two response briefs. First, Plaintiff filed ECF No. 108, which was exactly 20 pages in length (not including the certificate of service on page 21). Second, Plaintiff filed ECF No. 109, which was 21 pages long. Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion, that 21st page included text. Thus, it did technically exceed the Court's page limitation of 20 pages. But it only exceeded it by a single paragraph, which hardly warrants the extreme sanction of striking it.
Defendants also suggest that Plaintiff's brief should be stricken because, "as required in the Show Cause Order, [Plaintiff's brief] does not actually address the legal argument in Defendant's motion." (Defs.' Br. at 2). While that is true, that does not provide a basis for striking the brief from the record.
Defendants also ask the Court to deny Plaintiff's "motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1927" and, in turn, assess fees against Plaintiff's Counsel. (Defs.' Br. at 6). This request is denied, as Plaintiff did not file a motion seeking sanctions under § 1927 and, therefore, there is no pendingmotion for sanctions for the Court to deny.2
Defendants' filed their Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction on January 26, 2021, and the motion has been fully briefed.
A. Standard Of Review
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is brought under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3), which provides that "[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action."
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). It is well-established that subject matter jurisdiction can never be waived. Thus, the "objection that a federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction," under Rule 12(h)(3), "may be raised by a party, or by a court on its own initiative, at any stage in the litigation, even after trial and entry of judgment." Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 506, 126 S.Ct. 1235, 1240, 163 L.Ed.2d 1097 (2006); see also Prime Rate Premium Finance Corp., Inc. v. Larson, 930 F.3d 759, 764-65 (6th Cir. 2019) ().
There is a presumption against federal jurisdiction, Kokkonen, supra, at 377, and it is the plaintiff's burden to establish that subject matter jurisdiction exists. Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 96 (2010).
C. Defendant's Argument
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss asks this Court to dismiss this case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Defendants argue that there is no diversity jurisdiction over this case...
To continue reading
Request your trial