United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Southern Division
VT HALTER MARINE, INC. PLAINTIFF
EMAS CHIYODA SUBSEA, INC. f/k/a EMAS-AMC, INC. and EZRA HOLDINGS LIMITED DEFENDANTS
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR LACK
OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION
SULEYMAN OZERDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court sua sponte. The Court has
a continuing duty to examine subject-matter jurisdiction and
is required to dismiss any action over which it lacks
jurisdiction. Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v.
Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702
(1982); Warren v. United States, 874 F.2d 280,
281-82 (5th Cir. 1989); Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3). For the
reasons that follow, the Court finds that this case should be
dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having
subject-matter jurisdiction only over those matters
specifically designated by the Constitution or Congress.
Halmekangas v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 603
F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 2010) (citing Epps v.
Bexar-Medina-Atascosa Counties Water Improvement Dist. No.
1, 665 F.2d 594, 595 (5th Cir. 1982)). Courts
“must presume that a suit lies outside this limited
jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing federal
jurisdiction rests on the party seeking the federal
forum.” Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d
912, 916 (5th Cir. 2001).
must dismiss a case sua sponte if subject-matter
jurisdiction is lacking pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12, even if not raised by the parties. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at
any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court
must dismiss the action.”); see also Bridgmon v.
Array Systems Corp., 325 F.3d 572, 575 (5th Cir. 2003)
(noting that it is a district court's duty to consider
this issue sua sponte even when the parties have not
VT Halter Marine, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed this
lawsuit on February 27, 2017, on the basis of diversity
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which
[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all
civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum
or value of $75, 000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is
(1) citizens of different States;
(2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign
state, except that the district courts shall not have
original jurisdiction under this subsection of an action
between citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a
foreign state who are lawfully admitted for permanent
residence in the United States and are domiciled in the same
(3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or
subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; and
(4) a foreign state, defined in section 1603(a) of this
title, as plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
Complaint  named two Defendants, EMAS Chiyoda Subsea, Inc.
f/k/a EMAS-AMC, Inc. (“EMAS”) and Ezra Holdings
Limited (“Ezra”). Compl.  at 1. Plaintiff
states that it is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in Mississippi, making it a citizen of both
Delaware and Mississippi for diversity jurisdiction purposes.
Id.; see also Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559
U.S. 77, 80 (2010). The Complaint  alleges that Defendant
EMAS is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Texas, and that Defendant Ezra is a Singapore
limited liability company. Compl.  at 1. Because Plaintiff
and EMAS are both citizens of Delaware, complete diversity of
citizenship is lacking. See McLaughlin v. Miss. Power
Co., 376 F.3d 344, 353 (5th Cir. 2004)
(“[C]omplete diversity requires that all persons on one
side of the controversy be citizens of different states than
all persons on the other side.”) (quotation omitted).
presence of Ezra as a foreign citizen is not enough to create
diversity jurisdiction in this scenario, because 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a)(3) confers jurisdiction only when a citizen of
one state sues both a foreign citizen and a citizen of a
state that is different from the plaintiff's.
Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826,
828 (1989). Nor do any federal claims appear on the face of
the Complaint . See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Accordingly, the ...