Federal Insurance Company v. Bluestone Resources, Inc. ( 2024 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED: 7/1/2024 FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, -against- 1: 23-cv-04963 (MKV) BLUESTONE RESOURCES, INC., BLUESTONE ENERGY SALES CORP., SOUTHERN COAL ORDER DENYING WITHOUT CORPORATION, JAMES C. JUSTICE, II, BEECH PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S CREEK COAL CORPORATION, JOHN DOE(S) 1- MOTION FOR JUDGMENT 10 (FICTITIOUS NAMES REPRESENTING ON THE PLEADINGS UNKNOWN INDIVIDUALS); and XYZ CORP(S) 1-10 (FICTITIOUS NAMES REPRESENTING UNKNOWN CORPORATIONS), Defendants. MARY KAY VYSKOCIL, United States District Judge: Plaintiff Federal Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against Defendants1 alleging that Defendants have repeatedly failed, and refused, to comply with their joint and several contractual obligations to indemnify, hold harmless, and/or otherwise reimburse Plaintiff. Plaintiff now moves for judgment on the pleadings, seeking judgment in favor of Plaintiff not only with respect to liability on four of the five counts asserted in the Complaint, but also seeking entry of a judgment that includes a specific damages amount, which includes attorneys’ fees and costs. [ECF No. 25]. Defendants do not appear to dispute liability on the Counts, but instead, dispute only the allegation in the Complaint which sets forth Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs. [ECF No. 26]. Notwithstanding, the Court, as it is independently obligated to do, has assessed whether it has subject matter jurisdiction in connection with this action. See Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 1 In this Motion, Defendants Bluestone Energy Sales Corp., Southern Coal Corporation, and James C. Justice II are collectively referred to as “Principal” or “Judgment Debtors.” The Principal or Judgment Detors and Defendant Bluestones Resources Inc. are each referred to as an “Indemnitor” and are collectively referred to as the “Indemnitors.” The Indemnitors and Defendant Beech Creek Coal Corporation are collectively referred to as the “Defendants.” 428, 434 (2011); In re Tronox Inc., 855 F.3d 84, 95 (2d Cir. 2017); see e.g., Digitel, Inc. v. MCI Worldcom, Inc., 239 F.3d 187, 189-90 (2d Cir. 2001) (affirming the district court’s sua sponte dismissal on subject-matter jurisdiction grounds); Curcio v. Abrams, No. 22-693, 2023 WL 31183, at *2 (2d Cir. Jan. 4, 2023) (summary order) (affirming the district court’s sua sponte dismissal). After review, Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is hereby DENIED without prejudice based on the apparent lack of subject matter jurisdiction in light of Plaintiff’s improperly plead diversity of citizenship in its Complaint. [ECF No. 1]. The Court will simultaneously enter an Order to Show Cause directing Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Flemming v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, No. 21 Civ. 1112, 2021 WL 878558, at *1-2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2021). The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to close docket entry 25. SO ORDERED. ee V yefevel Date: July 1, 2024 MARY KAY VY$KOCI New York, NY United States District Judge