Laserfiche WebLink
Outdoor Recreation Defendants argue that diversity jurisdiction can exist despite the <br />addition of non~itizen defendants because the Barkers are diverse parties from <br />Plaintiff <br />In its February 3, 2005, Order, the court adopted the Defendants' reasoning <br />.the addition of the State of Colorado-a non-citizen-will not destroy diversity <br />jurisdiction, nor is it required to create diversity jurisdiction " However, upon further <br />review of the case law provided by Plaintiff in its supplemental briefing on this issue, the <br />court corrects its earlier assertion Based on the case law provided by Plaintiff from <br />courts outside the Tenth Circuit, the court now believes that there cannot be diversity of <br />citizenship between a citizen and a non~itizen. See Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. <br />State of Alabama, 155 U.S. 482, 487 {1894); Kansas, 35 F. Supp. 2d at 785; Batton <br />v. Georgia GuH, 261 F. Supp. 2d 575, 582 (M.D. La. 2003) (holding the presence of <br />state agencies as co-defendants destroys complete diversity); Jakoubek v. Fortis <br />Benefits Ins. Co., 301 F. Supp. 2d 1045, 1048 (D. Neb. 2003) (finding that presence of <br />state would destroy diversity between Nebraska plaintiff and Minnesota co-defendant if <br />state was not merely nominal defendant) The presence of additional diverse parties <br />does not save jurisdiction, as the Defendants contend. Therefore. the addition of non- <br />citizen parties- i.e., the State of Colorado, the Colorado Department of Natural <br />Resources, its constituent Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, and the Board of <br />Parks and Outdoor Recreation- divests this court of diversity jurisdiction. <br />8 <br />