NUTT v. OLE MISS ATHLETICS FOUNDATION

Civil Action No. 3:17-CV-00130-NBB-RP.

HOUSTON DALE NUTT, JR., Plaintiff, v. OLE MISS ATHLETICS FOUNDATION, THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI, and THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING, Defendants.

United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Oxford Division.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity - Breach of Contract
Nature of Suit: 190 Contract: Other
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Houston Dale Nutt, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Walter Christian Morrison, IV , SESSUMS DALLAS & MORRISON, PLLC.

Ole Miss Athletics Foundation, Defendant, represented by R. David Kaufman , BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, John E. Wade, Jr. , BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES & Robert Lane Bobo , BRUNINI GRANTHAM GROWER & HEWES, PLLC.

The University of Mississippi, Defendant, represented by J. Cal Mayo, Jr. , MAYO MALLETTE, PLLC, Paul H. Stephenson, III , WATKINS & EAGER & Paul Bowie Watkins, Jr. , MAYO MALLETTE, PLLC.

The Board of Trustees For Institutions of Higher Learning, Defendant, represented by J. Cal Mayo, Jr. , MAYO MALLETTE, PLLC, Paul H. Stephenson, III , WATKINS & EAGER & Paul Bowie Watkins, Jr. , MAYO MALLETTE, PLLC.


ORDER

NEAL B. BIGGERS Jr., District Judge.

This cause comes before the court upon the defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Defendants argue that jurisdiction is lacking because both the University of Mississippi and the Board of Trustees for Institutions of Higher Learning are arms of the state of Mississippi and, consequently, are not "citizens" of any state for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. See Hood v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, 744 F.Supp.2d 590 (N.D. Miss. 2010); Tradigrain, Inc. v. Mississippi State Port Authority, 701 F.2d 1131 (5th Cir. 1983).

In response to the instant motion, the plaintiff concedes that the defendants' argument is meritorious and asserts "it is agreed that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction." The court points out that the claims filed by the plaintiff involve no federal statutes or U.S. Constitution claims and are all state law claims, and therefore, since the issues are not between "citizens of different states," the federal court lacks jurisdiction under the pleadings as presented.

It is, therefore, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and this case is dismissed without prejudice.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases