Minnesota Minority Trades Council and Bush Companies v. Daubenberger

Background

Minnesota Minority Trades Council and Bush Companies filed a self-represented complaint against Nancy Daubenberger, Robin Hutcheson, the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Administration, and the State of Minnesota. The complaint did not identify the basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction. It did not check either the “Federal Question” or “Diversity of Citizenship” box, and it stated “N/A” where it asked for the jurisdictional basis and facts supporting the claims.

Jurisdictional Analysis

Subject-matter jurisdiction is the court’s authority to hear a case, and the plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing it. The court concluded that diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 could not exist because the complaint stated that both the plaintiffs and defendants were Minnesota residents. Diversity jurisdiction also requires that the amount in controversy exceed $75,000, but the court’s stated reason for finding diversity jurisdiction unavailable was that the parties were not citizens of different states.

The court explained that federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the complaint. Because the complaint contained no allegations showing a federal claim, the plaintiffs had not established federal-question jurisdiction.

Disposition

The court ordered that the complaint be summarily dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). “Without prejudice” means the order did not bar refiling. The court also ordered that the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order be denied as moot and that their motion for leave to supplement the record be denied as moot. The court reminded the plaintiffs that a corporation or other artificial business entity cannot appear without a lawyer if they choose to refile. Judge Jerry W. Blackwell signed the order.