Federal Insurance Company v. Bluestone Resources, Inc.

Background

Federal Insurance Company brought the action against Bluestone Resources, Inc.; Bluestone Energy Sales Corp.; Southern Coal Corporation; James C. Justice II; Beech Creek Coal Corporation; and fictitious defendants. Federal Insurance alleged that the defendants repeatedly failed and refused to comply with joint and several contractual obligations to indemnify, hold harmless, and otherwise reimburse Federal Insurance.

Motion

Federal Insurance moved for judgment on the pleadings. That type of motion asks the court to decide the case based on the pleadings, such as the complaint and answer, when the material facts are not disputed. Federal Insurance sought judgment on liability for four of the five counts in the complaint and a judgment stating a specific damages amount, including attorneys’ fees and costs. The opinion states that the defendants did not appear to dispute liability on the counts, but disputed the complaint’s allegations concerning attorneys’ fees and costs.

Jurisdictional issue

Before ruling on the motion, the court independently reviewed whether it had subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the case. The court identified an apparent problem with Federal Insurance’s pleading of diversity of citizenship, a basis for federal jurisdiction that depends on the parties’ citizenship. The opinion does not explain the specific pleading defect.

Ruling

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil denied Federal Insurance’s motion for judgment on the pleadings without prejudice because of the apparent lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also said it would enter an order requiring Federal Insurance to show why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court requested that the clerk close docket entry 25, which contained the motion. The opinion did not dismiss the case in this order.