Ran, Inc v. Energy, Inc
Decision Date | 19 February 1991 |
Docket Number | No. 90-655,FREEPORT-M,90-655 |
Citation | 111 S.Ct. 858,498 U.S. 426,112 L.Ed.2d 951 |
Parties | cMoRAN, INC., et al. v. K N ENERGY, INC |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Petitioners seek review of a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, holding that a Fed- eral District Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain their diversity action because they added a nondiverse party after filing their complaint. We grant certiorari and reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Petitioners, McMoRan Oil and Gas Company (McMoRan) and its parent company, Freeport-McMoRan Inc. (Freeport), sued respondent K N Energy, Inc. (K N) for breach of contract in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. Petitioners claimed that respondent had failed to pay the price for natural gas agreed upon in their contract, and sought both declaratory relief to establish the contract price and damages for past underpayments. Petitioners based federal jurisdiction upon diversity of citizenship. At all times up to and including the filing of the complaint, Freeport and McMoRan were Delaware corporations with their principal places of business in Louisiana. K N was and is a Kansas corporation with its principal place of business in Colorado.
After suit was filed, petitioner McMoRan transferred its interest in the contract with respondent to a limited partnership, FMP Operating Company (FMPO), for business reasons unrelated to the instant litigation. FMPO's limited partners included citizens of Kansas and Colorado. Accordingly, before trial commenced, petitioners sought leave to amend their complaint to substitute FMPO as a plaintiff under Rule 25(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The District Court permitted petitioners to add FMPO as a party but did not remove McMoRan as a party. After a bench trial, the District Court held in favor of petitioners, and respondent appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed and directed that the suit be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The court held that "although complete diversity was present when the complaint was filed," the addition of FMPO as a plaintiff destroyed jurisdiction. 907 F.2d 1022, 1024 (1990). The court based its holding upon our decision in Carden v. Arkoma Associates, 494 U.S. 185, 110 S.Ct. 1015, 108 L.Ed.2d 157 (1990). The court explained that "Carden establishes that [FMPO's] addition as the real party in interest destroys the district court's diversity jurisdiction." 907 F.2d, at 1025.
Our decision last Term in Carden considered whether the citizenship of limited partners must be taken into account in determining whether diversity jurisdiction exists in an action brought by a limited partnership. The original plaintiff in Carden was the limited partnership; diversity jurisdiction, then, depended upon whether complete diversity of citizenship existed at the time the action was commenced. But nothing in Carden suggests any change in the well-established rule that diversity of citizenship is assessed at the time the action is filed. We have consistently held that if jurisdiction exists at the time an action is commenced, such jurisdiction may not be divested by subsequent events. Mollan v. Torrance, 9 Wheat. 537, 6 L.Ed. 154 (1824); Clarke v. Mathewson, 12 Pet. 164, 171, 9 L.Ed. 1041 (1838); Wichita Railroad & Light Co. v. Public Util. Comm'n of Kansas, 260 U.S. 48, 54, 43 S.Ct. 51, 53, 67 L.Ed. 124 (1922) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kozel v. Kozel
...court to determine if it has jurisdiction over the case pursuant to diversity of citizenship. Freeport–McMoRan, Inc. v. K N Energy, Inc., 498 U.S. 426, 428, 111 S.Ct. 858, 112 L.Ed.2d 951 (1991). Citizenship depends on domicile, not residency alone. Axel Johnson, Inc. v. Carroll Carolina Oi......
-
Hinojosa Eng'g, Inc. v. Lopez (In re Treyson Dev., Inc.), CASE NO: 14-70256
...the time an action is commenced, such jurisdiction may not be divested by subsequent events." Freeport-McMoRan, Inc. v. K N Energy, Inc., 498 U.S. 426, 428 (1991); see also Newby v. Enron Corp. (In re Enron Corp. Sec.), 534 F.3d 325, 335 (5th Cir. 2008) (stating that "if 'related to' jurisd......
-
U.S. Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. UBS Real Estate Sec. Inc.
...(quoting Mollan v. Torrance , 9 Wheat. 537, 539, 22 U.S. 537, 6 L.Ed. 154 (1824) ); see also Freeport – McMoRan, Inc. v. K N Energy, Inc. , 498 U.S. 426, 428, 111 S.Ct. 858, 112 L.Ed.2d 951 (1991) ("We have consistently held that if jurisdiction exists at the time an action is commenced, su......
-
Hinojosa Eng'g, Inc. v. Lopez (In re Treyson Dev., Inc.)
...exists at the time an action is commenced, such jurisdiction may not be divested by subsequent events." Freeport-McMoRan, Inc. v. K N Energy, Inc., 498 U.S. 426, 428 (1991); see also Newby v. Enron Corp. (In re Enron Corp. Sec.), 534 F.3d 325, 335 (5th Cir. 2008) (stating that "if 'related ......
-
Forum Selection: Venue, Forum Non Conveniens, and Removal
...non-diverse party, the federal court must remand, as denial of joinder is not possible. [ Freeport-McMoRan, Inc. v. KN Energy, Inc. , 498 US 426, 428 (1991) (per curiam).] As a result, parties cannot defeat the diversity requirements by waiting to join an indispensable party until after rem......
-
Subject Matter Jurisdiction in Antitrust and Business Tort Litigation
...damages to amounts below jurisdictional threshold will not divest court of jurisdiction); see also Freeport-McMoRan, Inc. v. K N Energy, 498 U.S. 426, 428 (1991) (addition of nondiverse, nonessential party cannot destroy jurisdiction). 44. 28 U.S.C. § 1653; see also McCready v. eBay, Inc., ......
-
Table of Cases
...37:05 Freeman v. State , 786 SW2d 56 (TexApp — Houston [1st Dist] 1990, no writ), §25:570 Freeport-McMoRan, Inc. v. KN Energy, Inc. , 498 US 426 (1991), §§9:567, 9:568 Freis v. Canales , 877 SW2d 283, 284 (Tex 1994), §§18:83, 38:226 French v. Community Broadcasting of Coastal Bend, Inc. , 7......
-
Dueling Grants: Reimagining Cafa's Jurisdictional Provisions
...is to be determined with reference to the facts as they existed at the time of filing"); Freeport-McMoRan, Inc. v. K N Energy, Inc. 498 U.S. 426, 428 (1991) (per curiam) ("We have consistently held that if jurisdiction exists at the time an action is commenced, such jurisdiction may not be ......