Laserfiche WebLink
jurisdiction over any civil action where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or <br />value of $75,000 and the dispute is between "citizens of different States." 28 U.S.C. § <br />1332(a)(1) (emphasis added) This statute has consistently been held to require <br />complete diversity of citizenship. Owen Equip. 6 Election Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. <br />365, 373 (1976). "[D]iversity jurisdiction does not exist unless each defendant is a <br />citizen of a different State from each plaintiff." /d. <br />Plaintiff is correct that a state is a not a citizen for purposes of diversity <br />jurisdiction. Kansas v. Home Cable lnc., 35 F. Supp. 2d 783, 785 (D. Kan. 1998). As <br />both parties have conceded, the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, its <br />constituent Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, and the Board of Parks and <br />Outdoor Recreation are "non-independent entities° and are "arms of the state." See <br />BTU Empire's "Supplemental Brief on Issues Affecting Diversity Jurisdiction," p. <br />2. Because the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, its constituent Division of <br />Parks and Outdoor Recreation, and the Board of Parks and Outdoor Recreation are <br />arms of the state, they are not considered "citizens° for purposes of diversity <br />jurisdiction See Moor v. Alameda County, 411 U.S. 893, 717-718 (1973) (finding that <br />only a political subdivision of a state may be considered a citizen of a state, but an <br />"ann or alter ego of the State' may not). <br />Again, the parties disagree as to what implications this has on the case. Plaintiff <br />asserts that true diversity cannot exist between acitizen-the Plaintiff- and non- <br />citizens-the State of Colorado, the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, its <br />constituent Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, and the Board of Parks and <br /> <br />