Martin et al v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company et al, No. 3:2010cv00144 - Document 18 (S.D.W. Va. 2010)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 16 MOTION to Stay. This action is stayed in its entirety, pending resolution of the motion to remand. Signed by Judge Robert C. Chambers on 4/12/2010. (cc: attys) (gan)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA HUNTINGTON DIVISION JEFFREY A. MARTIN, and JUANITA FLEMING as Executrix of the Estate of Arch Fleming, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10-0144 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation; SHANNON CAZAD and ANGELA COOKE, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion to Stay Briefing and Decision on Defendants Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 16). Plaintiffs seek to stay such briefing and decision in light of their pending motion to remand and pending disposition of the same. For the reasons stated below, the motion is GRANTED. The federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction possess[ing] only that power authorized by Constitution and statute. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 552 (2005). Defendants removed this action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332. See Doc. 1. On February 24, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, opposing removal on the grounds that: (1) Defendants have not proven the jurisdictional amount of $5,000,000 is satisfied, and (2) even in the case that the Court finds the jurisdictional amount satisfied, the case should be remanded because Plaintiffs claims fall under the local controversy and/or the home state exceptions of the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4). See Doc. 4. On March 10, 2010, Defendants filed a response in opposition to Plaintiffs motion to remand. See Doc. 6. Subsequently, on March 26, 2010, Defendants filed their motion to dismiss. See Doc. 14. Plaintiffs now seek to stay the briefing and decision on this motion to dismiss, pending disposition of their motion to remand. See Doc. 16. Without jurisdiction [a] court cannot proceed at all in any cause. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998). The requirement that jurisdiction be established as a threshold matter spring[s] from the nature and limits of the judicial power of the United States and is inflexible and without exception. Id. (citing Mansfield, C. & L.M.R. Co. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 382 (1884). As a result, when there are simultaneously pending motions to remand and to dismiss, [t]he Court s first duty is to resolve the motion to remand[.] McWilliams v. Monarch Rubber Co., 70 F.Supp.2d 663, 665 n. 3 (S.D. W.Va. 1999) (Haden, C.J.). The Court therefore FINDS that the disposition of Plaintiffs jurisdictional inquiry is a necessary threshold matter and, accordingly, GRANTS Plaintiffs motion. This action is ORDERED STAYED, in its entirety, pending resolution of the motion to remand. Once the motion to remand is resolved, the Court will enter a new ORDER AND NOTICE pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 16.1. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented parties. ENTER: April 12, 2010 ROBERT C. CHAMBERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.