Spencer v. Walter-Dimmick Petroleum, Inc., 1:22-cv-01209

Megan Spencer originally sued Walter-Dimmick Petroleum in Eaton County Circuit Court; that state action was later dismissed by stipulation.
Spencer and her minor son filed a federal complaint in the Eastern District of Michigan; the case was transferred to the Western District of Michigan.
The complaint asserted diversity jurisdiction but failed to allege the citizenship of each defendant; the Court ordered an amended complaint or show-cause.
The amended complaint nonetheless alleged that both Spencer and defendant Walter-Dimmick were citizens of Michigan, defeating complete diversity.
The Court dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs then moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) for relief from the dismissal and asked the Court to transfer the case back to Eaton County Circuit Court to avoid statute-of-limitations problems.
The Court denied the Rule 60(b) motion and refused to transfer the case to state court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 60(b)(1) relief is warranted to set aside dismissal for lack of diversity	Spencer argued the dismissal was based on a mistake/excusable neglect and sought relief under Rule 60(b)(1)	Error in alleging diversity is not excusable; attorney mistakes or strategic errors do not justify Rule 60(b)(1) relief	Denied — attorney/pleading error is not excusable neglect under Rule 60(b)(1)
Whether Rule 60(b)(6) provides relief for dismissal despite Rule 60(b)(1) available	Plaintiffs invoked Rule 60(b)(6) as an alternative ground for relief	(Implicit) No extraordinary circumstances exist beyond those covered by other subsections; attorney error fits (b)(1), not (b)(6)	Denied — (b)(6) applies only in rare, extraordinary cases and is inappropriate here
Whether the court can transfer the case to Eaton County Circuit Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a)	Plaintiffs asked for a transfer to state court to preserve claims barred by the statute of limitations	§ 1406(a) permits transfer only to another federal district and applies when venue is improper; a federal court without subject-matter jurisdiction cannot transfer; plaintiffs’ filing was an obvious error, so transfer is not in the interest of justice	Denied — court lacks power to transfer to state court under § 1406(a); transfer not warranted given obvious jurisdictional error

Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Byers, 151 F.3d 574 (6th Cir. 1998) (Rule 60(b)(6) relief requires exceptional or extraordinary circumstances)
United States v. Reyes, 307 F.3d 451 (6th Cir. 2002) (attorney mistakes or actions without authority can justify relief in narrow circumstances; distinguishes excusable neglect)
Hale v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC, 982 F.3d 996 (6th Cir. 2020) (complete diversity requirement for § 1332 jurisdiction)
McCurry ex rel. Turner v. Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc., 298 F.3d 586 (6th Cir. 2002) (attorney errors and filing in federal court despite lack of diversity do not justify Rule 60(b) relief)
Pope v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co., 345 U.S. 379 (U.S. 1953) (§ 1404(a) transfer language applies only within federal courts)
Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the W. Dist. of Tex., 571 U.S. 49 (U.S. 2013) (Section 1404(a) governs transfers within federal system)
Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463 (U.S. 1962) (court may transfer when lacking personal jurisdiction but addresses venue defects)
Grand Blanc Educ. Ass'n v. Grand Blanc Bd. of Educ., 624 F.2d 47 (6th Cir. 1980) (where a court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, it lacks power to transfer the action)
Stanifer v. Brannan, 564 F.3d 455 (6th Cir. 2009) (transfer under § 1406 is inappropriate when filing in wrong forum was an obvious error rather than a colorable mistake)