Greene v. Sprint Nextel Corp.
690 F. App'x 614
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Federal courts must independently determine subject-matter jurisdiction and dismiss if none exists.
- Statutory bases for federal jurisdiction are 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal-question) and 1332 (diversity).
- §1331 requires a colorable claim arising under federal law; §1332 requires complete diversity and an amount over $75,000.
- Greene sued Sprint Nextel for negligent infliction of emotional distress, claiming diversity jurisdiction but requesting only $60,000 in damages.
- The district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; this court affirmatively holds there is no jurisdiction.
- The panel notes jurisdiction cannot be waived and emphasizes claims must clearly appear on the face of the complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Greene's complaint establish federal-question jurisdiction? | Greene asserts some federal basis via diversity; no federal-question claim is alleged. | No federal-question basis is present in the complaint. | No federal-question jurisdiction established. |
| Does Greene's claim satisfy diversity jurisdiction requirements? | Greene seeks to rely on diversity to obtain federal jurisdiction. | Facts show only $60,000 in damages, precluding federal-diversity jurisdiction. | Diversity jurisdiction not established; amount-in-controversy not met. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (U.S. 2006) (independent obligation to determine jurisdiction; lack requires dismissal)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1994) (presumption against jurisdiction and need for proper dismissal mechanics)
- Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (U.S. 1946) (federal-question jurisdiction requires colorable claim arising under federal law)
- Whitelock v. Leatherman, 460 F.2d 507 (10th Cir. 1972) (jurisdiction must clearly appear on the face of the complaint)
- Ledbetter v. City of Topeka, 318 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2003) (liberal construction of pro se pleadings, but cannot substitute as litigant's attorney)
- Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836 (10th Cir. 2005) (treats pleading deficiencies with leniency but cannot supply factual theories)
- Whitney v. New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170 (10th Cir. 1997) (court will not supply factual allegations or construct legal theories for plaintiff)