Wilkerson v. Missouri Dept. of Mental Health, 4:03CV445 DDN.
| Decision Date | 31 July 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 4:03CV445 DDN.,4:03CV445 DDN. |
| Citation | 279 F.Supp.2d 1079 |
| Parties | John C. WILKERSON, Plaintiff, v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, and Melinda Marie Sloan, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
Page 1079
v.
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, and Melinda Marie Sloan, Defendants.
Maurice B. Graham, Gray and Ritter, St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiff.
Rex M. Burlison, Maureen C. Beekley, Attorney General of Missouri, St. Louis, MO, for Defendants.
NOCE, United States Magistrate Judge.
This action is before the court on the motion to dismiss of defendants Missouri Department of Mental Health (MDMH) and Melinda Marie Sloan. (Doc. 6.) The parties have consented to the exercise of plenary authority by the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
On June 9, 2003, plaintiff filed a complaint for damages for personal injuries allegedly suffered when he was struck by a vehicle Sloan was driving while acting within the scope and course of her employment with MDMH. The complaint asserts that "the Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) in that there is complete diversity of citizenship of the parties." (Doc. 1.)
In their motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6), defendants argue that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, because there is not complete diversity between the parties and, alternatively, that they are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.
In response, plaintiff states that, although he believes there is complete diversity of citizenship and that his claim for damages is in an amount that would normally give this court jurisdiction, defendants' motion is well founded because MDMH is not a "resident" of the State of Missouri for diversity purposes. Plaintiff consents to dismissal, but "without prejudice." (Doc. 10.)
Page 1080
The diversity-of-citizenship statute requires, as relevant, that the civil action be between "citizens of different States." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). It is the plaintiff's burden to establish the factual bases for the subject matter jurisdiction plaintiff invokes. See Osborn v. United States, 918 F.2d 724, 730 (8th Cir.1990) (once subject-matter jurisdiction has been challenged under Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction). "It is, to say the least, well settled that federal diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity, so that no defendant is a citizen of the same state as any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chisholm v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co.
...between a state and a citizen.... of another state is not between citizens of different states.... "); Wilkerson v. Mo. Dep't of Mental Health, 279 F.Supp.2d 1079, 1080 (E.D.Mo.2003) ("The inclusion of a Missouri state agency as a defendant ... destroys the required diversity of citizenship......
-
ABU Dhabi Commercial Bank v. Morgan Stanley & Co.
...they and the plaintiff cannot be citizens of different states” for the purposes of Section 1332); Wilkerson v. Missouri Dep't of Mental Health, 279 F.Supp.2d 1079, 1080 (E.D.Mo.2003) (“The inclusion of a Missouri state agency as a defendant ... destroys the required diversity of citizenship......
-
Hoffman v. Connecticut, Civil No. 09-79-B-H.
...they and the plaintiff cannot be citizens of different states" for the purposes of Section 1332); Wilkerson v. Mo. Dep't of Mental Health, 279 F.Supp.2d 1079, 1080 (E.D.Mo.2003) ("The inclusion of a Missouri state agency as a defendant . . . destroys the required diversity of citizenship").......
-
Curators of Univ. of Mo. v. Corizon Health, Inc.
...they were proper defendants, destroyed diversity, even if a diverse defendant remained in the case); Wilkerson v. Missouri Dept. of Mental Health, 279 F. Supp. 2d 1079, 1080 (E.D. Mo. 2003) (inclusion of state agency destroyed diversity, despite presence of diverse codefendant); Bosse v. Pi......