CourtListener opinion 10730596

Evidence quotes

Clean opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 
 THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA 

 HUNTINGTON DIVISION 

CAMELA JACKSON, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:21-0570 

HUNTINGTON POLICE 
PENSION BOARD and 
CHRISTOPHER JACKSON, 

 Defendants. 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are Motions to Dismiss and Motions for Summary 
Judgment by Defendant Christopher Jackson and Defendant Huntington Police Pension Board 
(ECF Nos. 29, 31, 41, & 44) and a cross Motion for Summary Judgment by Plaintiff Camela 
Jackson. ECF No. 36. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motions to Dismiss and 
DENIES AS MOOT both Defendants' and Plaintiff's Motions for Summary Judgment. 

 This case involves a dispute regarding the application of a Qualified Domestic 
Relations Order (QDRO) to certain pension benefits earned by Defendant Christopher Jackson and 
disbursed by Defendant Huntington Police Pension Board (the Board). Initially, Plaintiff brought 
this action seeking injunctive relief against the Board and asked the Court to order the Board to 
make payments to her in the amount she believed she was entitled to receive. After hearing 
arguments by Plaintiff and the Board, the Court directed Plaintiff to either join Mr. Jackson as a 
defendant in this matter or explain how the case can proceed without him being a party. Order 
(Feb. 23, 2022), ECF No. 16. Thereafter, Plaintiff moved to join Mr. Jackson as an indispensable 
party and to amend her Complaint. ECF Nos. 18, 20. The Court granted both motions. ECF Nos. 
19, 21. 

 In their Motions to Dismiss, both Mr. Jackson and the Board argue that this Court 
lacks diversity jurisdiction because Plaintiff's claim does not exceed the sum or value of $75,000. 
It is axiomatic that a court must have subject matter jurisdiction over a controversy before it can 
render any decision on the merits. A motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction raises 
the fundamental question of whether a court is competent to hear and adjudicate the claims brought 
before it and requires dismissal if the court lacks such jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), 
federal diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between the parties and an amount in 
controversy exceeding $75,000. 

 Although the parties disagree as to whether the jurisdictional dollar amount is met, 

it is unnecessary for the Court to address that issue. Here, Plaintiff has alleged in her Complaint 
that both she and Defendant Jackson are residents of Boyd County, Kentucky. Compl. at ¶¶1, 3. In 
an action based on diversity jurisdiction, "the presence in the action of a single plaintiff from the 
same State as a single defendant deprives the district court of original diversity jurisdiction over 
the entire action." Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 553 (2005) 
(citations omitted). Therefore, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter and 
must dismiss.1 

1In paragraph 6 of the Complaint, Plaintiff also alleges that the Board's decision to cease 
her payments violated the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. Although 
the parties do not directly argue federal question jurisdiction, the Court recognizes that the Full 
 Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motions 
to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 29, 31), DENIES Defendants' and Plaintiff's Motions for Summary 
Judgment (ECF Nos. 36, 41, 44), and DISMISSES this action from the Court's docket. 

 The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record 
and any unrepresented parties. 
 ENTER: August 22, 2022 

 : JZ, 
 Yh 
 ROBERT C. CHAMBERS 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Faith and Credit Clause cannot invoke federal question jurisdiction. See Thompson v. Thompson, 
484 U.S. 174, 182-83 (1988) ("the Full Faith and Credit Clause, in either its constitutional or 
statutory incarnations, does not give rise to an implied federal cause of action") (citing Minnesota 
v. Northern Securities Co., 194 U.S. 48, 72 (1904) (The Full Faith and Credit Clause "only 
prescribes a rule by which courts, Federal and state, are to be guided . . . the clause has nothing to 
do with the conduct of individuals or corporations; and to invoke the rule which it prescribes does 
not make a case arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States.")). 
 -3-