Warren v. EMPLOYERS'INDEMNITY CORPORATION
| Decision Date | 12 April 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 971.,971. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
| Parties | WARREN v. EMPLOYERS' INDEMNITY CORPORATION. |
Inman & West, of Sacramento, Cal., for plaintiff.
Johnson & Lemmon and George E. McCutchen, all of Sacramento, Cal., for defendant.
The question of the jurisdiction of the court over this case is presented by the demurrer to the second amended complaint. The question must be determined on the basis of whether or not the jurisdictional facts existed at the time the original complaint was filed. If the jurisdictional facts then existed, the court may in its discretion permit an amendment to cure a defect in alleging them. Rabe v. Danaher (C. C. A. 2) 56 F.(2d) 758; Swayne & Hoyt v. Barsch (C. C. A. 9) 226 F. 581; Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Thompson (D. C.) 27 F.(2d) 753; Carr v. Fife, 156 U. S. 494, 15 S. Ct. 427, 39 L. Ed. 508; 1 Cyc. Fed. Procedure, p. 709, and cases therein cited. Where, however, the jurisdictional facts did not exist at the time the original complaint was filed, but arose thereafter, an amendment to the complaint setting up the new facts does not give the court jurisdiction. Sanbo v. Union Pacific Coal Co. (C. C.) 146 F. 80; Anderson v. Watts, 138 U. S. 694, 11 S. Ct. 449, 34 L. Ed. 1078; 15 Corpus Juris, 773, § 68; 1 Cyc. Fed. Procedure, p. 710.
In this case, at the time the complaint was filed, plaintiff as executrix of her deceased husband's estate had a cause of action for less than $3,000 consisting of a claim for nonpayment of accident benefits alleged to be due the insured during his life. She attempted to bring her claim above the jurisdictional amount by adding a count for the amount of the death benefit provided by the policy due to her as beneficiary which she had assigned to herself as executrix. This was held to be improper and the demurrer to the complaint was sustained. Subsequently the rights in both causes of action merged in plaintiff by virtue of a decree of the probate court. Plaintiff obtained an order substituting herself as plaintiff in place of herself in her representative capacity and filed the second amended complaint and set forth therein both grounds of recovery. When plaintiff commenced the suit as executrix, facts did not exist which would give this court jurisdiction. The merging of the causes of action in her person subsequent to the filing of the suit cannot now give the court jurisdiction.
Since both causes of action arise out of the same insurance...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Surety Corporation v. Chamberlain
...suit * * * St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 289, 58 S.Ct. 586, 82 L.Ed. 845." Warren v. Employers' Indemnity Corp., D.C.N.D.Cal., 3 F.Supp. 221 at page 222: "The question must be determined on the basis of whether or not the jurisdictional facts existed at the ti......
-
Mathews v. PUERTO RICO MARITIME MANAGEMENT, INC.
...the requisite amount in controversy did not exist at the time the initial complaint was filed. See, e.g., Warren v. Employers' Indemnity Corp., 3 F.Supp. 221, 222 (N.D. Cal.1933); cf. Field v. Volkswagenwerk AG, 626 F.2d 293, 305 (3d Cir.1980); Church of Scientology of Colorado v. United St......