Harris v. Saturn of Lewisville , 193 F. App'x 307 ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 1, 2006
_______________________ Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-11395
Summary Calendar
_______________________
KENNETH L HARRIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SATURN OF LEWISVILLE,
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
3:05-CV-00621-P
_________________________________________________________________
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Kenneth Harris appeals the district court’s dismissal of
his action. Because the federal courts have no jurisdiction over
this case, we must VACATE the judgment of the district court and
REMAND with instructions to DISMISS.
DISCUSSION
Kenneth Harris, a citizen of Texas, originally brought
this lawsuit in Texas state court, alleging that Saturn of
Lewisville had violated his rights under Texas law. Harris cited
relevant Texas statutes and did not bring any federal claims.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Saturn of Lewisville removed the case to federal court on the basis
of diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Harris did not file
a motion to remand.
Prior to reaching the merits, we must verify, sua sponte,
that jurisdiction is proper. E.g. Ross v. Marshall, 426 F.3d 745,
751 n.8 (5th Cir. 2005). “[A] lack of subject matter jurisdiction
may be raised at any time, and we can examine the lack of subject
matter jurisdiction for the first time on appeal.” McCloy v.
Silverthorne (In re McCloy), 296 F.3d 370, 373 (5th Cir. 2002).
In its notice of removal, Saturn of Lewisville admitted
that it is “a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business located at 200 E. Airport Freeway, Irving, Texas 75062.”
Corporations can have citizenship in two places for purposes of
diversity jurisdiction and 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See, e.g., Howery v.
Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912, 920 (5th Cir. 2001) (holding that
because “[d]iversity of parties must be complete,” to evoke
diversity jurisdiction on removal, Illinois-incorporated “Allstate
must establish that Allstate’s principal place of business is not
Texas,” which was the citizenship of the plaintiff) (footnote
omitted). In this case, Saturn of Lewisville and Harris are both
citizens of Texas, destroying diversity. Accordingly, this court
must dismiss the case for want of subject matter jurisdiction. See
id. at 921.
We VACATE the judgment of the district court and REMAND
this case with instructions to DISMISS the case for lack of
2
jurisdiction.
3