November 1, 1985
SUZANNE ACORD, Individually; as Legal and Personal Representative of the Estate of Lawrence Dale Acord, Deceased; and as Mother and Next Friend of Leslie G. Acord and Lawrence B. Acord, Minors, Plaintiff
McLAUGHLIN CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT CORPORATION A.K.A. "MCL", 1416 U Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20009, SERVE: C.T. Corporation Systems, 1030-15th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005 and SCHUBERTH CORPORATION, P.O. Box 475, Flowery Branch, Georgia 30542, SERVE: Helmut Leith, President, 2523 Thompson Overlook, Gainesville, Georgia and MELLON STUART COMPANY, One North Shore Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15212, SERVE: David Figgins, President, Mellow Stuart Co., One North Shore Center, Pittsburgh, PA 15212 and DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, SERVE: Gary P. Freeman, Office of the Corporation, Counsel, 1350 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. and V.V.K.R., 901 N. Pitt Street Alexandria, Virginia 22314, SERVE: William Vosbeck, President, V.V.K.R., 901 N. Pitt Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314 and DEVROUX & PURNELL, 1215 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, SERVE: Marshall Purnell, 1215 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 and ROBERT T. COLES ARCHITECT, 730 Ellicot Square Buffalo, New York 14203, SERVE: Robert T. Coles, 730 Ellicot Square Buffalo, New York 14203, Defendants. SUZANNE M. ACORD, Individually; as legal and personal representative of the Estate of Lawrence Dale Acord, Deceased; and as Mother and Next Friend of Leslie G. Acord and Lawrence B. Acord, Minors, 2610 Overdale Place, Forestville, Maryland 20028, Plaintiffs v. MCLAUGHLIN CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, A/K/A "MCL", 1416 U Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20009, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff and SCHUBERTH CORPORATION, P.O. Box 475, Flowery Branch, Georgia 30542, Defendant v. SHERMAN R. SMOOT COMPANY, 1133-15th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C., Third-Party defendant
The opinion of the court was delivered by: OBERDORFER
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE, BREACH OF WARRANTY AND STRICT LIABILITY (Wrongful Death and Survival Action)
1. Jurisdiction of this Court is based upon diversity of citizenship and amount in controversy pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1. Plaintiffs herein have brought this action for alleged damages. A copy of the Complaint is attached as Exhibit A.
This action is brought for negligence, breach of warranty and strict liability against a number of defendants for an alleged construction site accident which occurred in the District of Columbia. One defendant, the District of Columbia, has filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that this Court lacks jurisdiction over it as a defendant.
The federal diversity jurisdiction statute provides:
(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $ 10,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between--
(1) citizens of different States;
(2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state; and
(3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; and
(4) a foreign state, defined in section 1603(a) of this title, as plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different States.
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (1982). Section 1132(d) specifically provides that "the word 'States,' as used in this section includes the Territories, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico." A "State" is not a "citizen" for purposes of federal diversity jurisdiction. Moor v. County of Alameda, 411 U.S. 693, 717, 36 L. Ed. 2d 596, 93 S. Ct. 1785 (1973). Consequently, federal diversity jurisdiction does not exist between the District of Columbia and a citizen of another state. Mann v. District of Columbia, 742 F.2d 750 (3d Cir. 1984); Stewart v. District of Columbia, No. 77-1430, unpublished judgment (D.C. Cir. 1978); Davis v. District of Columbia, No. 84-3015, ...
Buy This Entire Record For