Laserfiche WebLink
jurisdiction." Rather, as pointed out by Empire in its Memorandum in Support, "joinder" <br />of the State would deprive this court of jurisdiction. <br />Federal courts aze courts of limited jurisdiction. Among other limitations not <br />applicable here, Federal courts have jurisdiction in cases between citizens of different <br />states. However, as aclrnowledged by the Barkers in footnote 3 of the Response, a state <br />is not a "citizen" of any state for purposes of determining diversity jurisdiction. The <br />jurisdictional requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) that a case be between "citizens of <br />different states" is not met when a party is not a "citizen" of any state. Stated differently, <br />"[I]f a party is not a citizen of a state at all, then it is not a citizen of a different state and <br />it would be inappropriate to allow that party to ... be subject to federal jurisdiction based <br />only on diversity of citizenship." Jakou6ek v. Forris Benefits Ins. Co., 301 F.Supp.2d <br />1045, 1049 (D.Neb. 2003), quoting Batton v. Georgia Guff, 261 F.Supp.2d 575, 582 <br />(M.D. La. 2003). Because the jurisdictional requirement is not met, there simply is no <br />basis upon which a federal court can base its jurisdiction when an action involves a <br />citizen of a given state and that state itself. <br />As shown above, Empire's Motion could not have been made under Fed. R. Civ. <br />P. 19 because additional allegations were required to meet the minimal standazds of <br />notice pleading against Mr. Stinson and the State. Furthermore, Empire's Motion could <br />not have been made under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 because the State cannot be joined as a party <br />under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 since it is not a party "whose joinder will not deprive the court <br />of jurisdiction." <br />Thus, Empire's Motion was properly made under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). <br />