United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PATRICIA L. COHEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on review of the record regarding
the Court's subject matter jurisdiction over this
seeks monetary relief for injuries he allegedly sustained,
and for damage his motor vehicle allegedly sustained, during
an accident on June 16, 2016. Plaintiff alleges that, at the
time of the accident, he was a passenger in a vehicle he
owned that another person was driving. Plaintiff further
alleges that Defendant Richard Terry, as an “agent,
servant and/or employee of” Defendant Transwood, Inc.
(“Transwood”), was driving a tractor-trailer or
truck within the scope of his employment. While Defendant
Terry was operating his tractor-trailer on Interstate 270
near the Route N exit ramp, “the left rear outer tire
on his truck exploded . . . [and] a piece of the exploding
tire . . . flew through the air and struck [the]
vehicle” in which Plaintiff was a passenger, allegedly
“causing Plaintiff injuries and
damages.” Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that, as a
direct and proximate result of each Defendant's
carelessness and negligence, Plaintiff's motor vehicle
was damaged and:
Plaintiff was seriously injured and damaged; Plaintiff
sustained injuries to his right arm, neck and back; [and]
Plaintiff required treatment and will require treatment in
the future[; and]
. . . Plaintiff incurred treatment expenses in an amount not
yet determined and will incur treatment expenses in the
future; Plaintiff's ability to work, labor and enjoy life
has been and will be impaired, all to his detriment and
damage; [and] Plaintiff lost wages and may lose wages in the
(Footnote added.) Plaintiff claims each Defendant is liable
based on negligence (Counts I and III) and res ipsa
loquitur (Counts II and IV). In the WHEREFORE
clause of each count, Plaintiff seeks judgment “in an
amount that is fair and reasonable in excess of Twenty-Five
Thousand Dollars ($25, 000.00), together with his
filed his petition in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Defendant Terry, with
Defendant Transwood's consent, removed the lawsuit to
this Court based on this Court's diversity jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Subject matter jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has
admonished district courts to “be attentive to a
satisfaction of jurisdictional requirements in all
cases.” Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 823 F.2d
214, 216 (8th Cir. 1987). “Lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction of a lawsuit cannot be waived by
the parties - or ignored by the courts - at any stage of the
litigation.” Sadler v. Green Tree Servicing,
LLC, 466 F.3d 623, 625 (8th Cir. 2006)
(citing Hunter v. Underwood, 362 F.3d 468, 476
(8th Cir. 2004)). Therefore, the Court “may
raise the [subject matter jurisdiction] issue[s] . . . even
if the parties do not.” Magee v. Exxon Corp.,
135 F.3d 599, 601 (8th Cir. 1998).
federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case
must be remanded to state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
Importantly, “all doubts about federal jurisdiction
must be resolved in favor of remand[.]” Central
Iowa Power Coop., 561 F.3d at 912.
litigant removing the lawsuit from state court to federal
court, the defendant bears the burden of establishing subject
matter jurisdiction. Central Iowa Power Coop. v. Midwest
Indep. Transmission Sys. Operator, Inc., 561 F.3d 904,
912 (8th Cir. 2009). In removed cases, the
district court reviews the state court petition pending at
the time of removal to determine the existence of subject
matter jurisdiction. See St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v.
Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 291 (1938). “A
defendant may remove a state law claim to federal court only
if the action originally could have been filed there.”
In re: Prempro Prods. Liab. Litig., 591 F.3d 613,
619 (8th Cir. 2010) (citing Phipps v.
FDIC, 417 F.3d 1006, 1010 (8th Cir. 2005)).
Under this Court's original diversity jurisdiction a
citizen of one state may file a state law claim against a
citizen of a different state when the amount in controversy
exceeds $75, 000.00 exclusive of interest and costs. 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).
Diversity of citizenship requirement
establish the diversity of citizenship requirement, there
must be “complete diversity of citizenship among the
litigants.” One Point Sols., LLC v. Borchert,
486 F.3d 342, 346 (8th Cir. 2007). “Complete
diversity of citizenship exists where no defendant holds
citizenship in the same state where any plaintiff holds
citizenship.” Id. (citing Owen Equip.
& Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373 (1978)).
In a removed lawsuit, “the parties must be diverse both
when the plaintiff initiates the action in state court and
when the defendant files the notice of removal in federal
court.” Ch ...