Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Thompson v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureSubject Matter JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionRule 12(b)(1)28 U.S.C. § 133228 U.S.C. § 1406complete diversitycitizenship

Facts

The present action was filed on September 7, 2012, in Alabama and later transferred to the Southern District of Mississippi. The district court found Thompson was a Florida citizen at that time based on evidence including his prior allegation in a December 2011 Florida complaint that he was a Florida citizen, his March 2013 deposition testimony that he had served as an associate pastor in Pensacola for about a year or fourteen months, his ownership of a vehicle titled in Florida, and his use of a Pensacola address on court filings since December 2011. Reeves also was a Florida citizen when this action was filed. Thompson argued the court should instead use his citizenship as of April 15, 2011, when he had filed an earlier Arkansas lawsuit based on the same underlying facts, but that Arkansas case had been dismissed rather than transferred, and a later Florida action based on the same facts had been voluntarily dismissed.

Issue

For purposes of diversity jurisdiction in this case, should citizenship be measured as of the filing of the present 2012 action, or may the plaintiff rely on his citizenship at the time he filed an earlier 2011 lawsuit based on the same underlying facts? Also, did the district court correctly find that Thompson was a Florida citizen when this action commenced?

Rule

Diversity jurisdiction must be established by the party invoking it, requires complete diversity, and is determined from the facts existing at the time the action at issue is filed. A later separately filed complaint does not relate back to an earlier dismissed complaint because it commences a separate action, not an amendment. A voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a) renders the dismissed proceedings a nullity, leaving the parties as if that action had never been brought.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nina Calder, a citizen of Nevada in 2021, sued Orion Freight Services and Leo Mendez in federal court in Tulsa based on diversity. That suit was dismissed for improper venue. In 2023, after Nina had moved to Arizona and Leo had also become an Arizona citizen, Nina filed a new suit arising from the same accident in federal court in Phoenix.

If Leo moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which is the best argument?

Explanation. Diversity is determined from the facts existing when the action before the court is filed. A later separately filed complaint after dismissal is the commencement of a separate action, not an amendment, so it does not relate back to the earlier dismissed case. Because Nina and Leo were both Arizona citizens when the 2023 action was filed, complete diversity is absent.