Walther v. Florida Tile, Inc., 3:18-cv-291. (2019)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20191024d10
Visitors: 16
Filed: Oct. 23, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 23, 2019
Summary: ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE CONCERNING THE COURT'S SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND STAYING THIS MATTER PENDING FURTHER ORDER THOMAS M. ROSE , District Judge . In its Notice of Removal, Defendant Florida Tile, Inc. ("Florida Tile") asserted that the citizenship of Defendant Jason Tackett ("Tackett") should be disregarded for purposes of determining jurisdiction, despite the Complaint's allegations that both Plaintiff James Walther ("Walther") and Tackett are citizens of Ohio. (Doc. 1.) A
Summary: ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE CONCERNING THE COURT'S SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND STAYING THIS MATTER PENDING FURTHER ORDER THOMAS M. ROSE , District Judge . In its Notice of Removal, Defendant Florida Tile, Inc. ("Florida Tile") asserted that the citizenship of Defendant Jason Tackett ("Tackett") should be disregarded for purposes of determining jurisdiction, despite the Complaint's allegations that both Plaintiff James Walther ("Walther") and Tackett are citizens of Ohio. (Doc. 1.) Al..
More
ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE CONCERNING THE COURT'S SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND STAYING THIS MATTER PENDING FURTHER ORDER
THOMAS M. ROSE, District Judge.
In its Notice of Removal, Defendant Florida Tile, Inc. ("Florida Tile") asserted that the citizenship of Defendant Jason Tackett ("Tackett") should be disregarded for purposes of determining jurisdiction, despite the Complaint's allegations that both Plaintiff James Walther ("Walther") and Tackett are citizens of Ohio. (Doc. 1.) Although Walther did not respond or otherwise object to the Notice of Removal, "federal courts have a duty to consider their subject matter jurisdiction in regard to every case and may raise the issue sua sponte." Answers in Genesis of Ky., Inc. v. Creation Ministries Int'l, Ltd., 556 F.3d 459, 465 (6th Cir. 2009). The parties are hereby made aware that the Sixth Circuit has held that "[t]he existence of subject matter jurisdiction is determined by examining the complaint as it existed at the time of removal." Harper v. AutoAlliance Int'l, Inc., 392 F.3d 195, 210 (6th Cir. 2004).
The Court ORDERS the parties to submit briefs on or before November 6, 2019 regarding the issue of whether this Court has proper subject matter jurisdiction over this case. The parties may file responses to any other party's brief on or before November 13, 2019. The Court STAYS this case and all pending deadlines, except with respect to this briefing, until the Court has issued a subsequent order concerning the issue of whether this Court has proper subject matter jurisdiction over this case. The phone conference currently set for November 8, 2019 at 10:00 A.M. is cancelled.
DONE and ORDERED
Source: Leagle