STARR INDEMNITY & LIABILITY COMPANY
v.
STANDARD AERO (SAN ANTONIO), INC.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the complaint must be dismissed because the plaintiff failed to establish complete diversity of citizenship between the parties, thus lacking subject-matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff Starr Indemnity & Liability Company, as subrogee, filed a subrogation action. The court reviewed the complaint and found that the plaintiff …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse 28 U.S.C. § 1653 cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendants. /
ORDER1
Before the Court is a sua sponte review of the Complaint (Doc. 1). Plaintiff Starr Indemnity & Liability Company filed this subrogation action as subrogee of UYTSAIFLY 800XP, LLC. Yet Starr failed to establish diversity, so the Complaint is dismissed. Federal courts have limited jurisdiction. And they are “obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte when it may be lacking.”
The typical citizenship analysis might be complicated by the fact Starr is subrogee of UYTSAIFLY. Generally, however, “If the subrogee has paid an entire loss suffered by the insured, it is the only real party in interest and must sue in its own name.” United States v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 338 U.S. 366,
380-81 (1949). As alleged, Starr (1) paid the entire loss, (2) is the real party in interest, and (3) sues in its own name. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(a). So its citizenship is relevant. 6A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1556 (3d ed. 2021 update) (“The general rule is that the citizenship of the real party in interest is determinative in deciding whether diversity jurisdiction exists”). Starr is a Texas corporation with a New York principal place of business—making Starr a citizen of Texas and New York. Defendant Standard
Aero (San Antonio), Inc. is a Delaware corporation with a Texas principal place of business—making San Antonio a citizen of Delaware and Texas. Because Starr is not diverse from San Antonio, there is not complete diversity. Am. Tobacco, 168 F. 3d at 412 (‘Where jurisdiction is predicated on diversity of citizenship, all plaintiffs must be diverse from all defendants.”). In other words, there is no federal subject-matter jurisdiction over this action. So the Court dismisses with leave to amend. See 28 U.S.C. § 1653. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint on or before October 15, 2021. Failure to do so will result in the Court closing this case without further notice. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on October 8, 2021.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Univ. OF S. Ala. v. THE Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405 (11th Cir. 1999)
- United States v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 338 U.S. 366 (U.S. 1949)
- Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2000)