Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Seyler v. Steuben Motors, Inc.

462 F.2d 181

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1972-06-06
Topic
general

OPINION OF THE COURT PER CURIAM: In this diversity action the district court found that plaintiff-appellants and Steuben Motors, Inc., one of the two named defendants, were citizens of Pennsylvania, - thus destroying the requirement of “complete diversity” necessitated by Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch. (7 U.S.) 267, 2 L.Ed. 435 (1806). See 1 Moore’s Federal Practice 0.60 [8. — 4], The finding by the court that Steuben’s principal place of business was in York, Pennsylvania, was not clearly erroneous. Appellants’ reliance on the doctrines of pendent or ancillary jurisdiction is misplaced.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Seyler v. Steuben Motors, Inc.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
16 opinions
SEYLER v. STEUBEN MOTORS, INC.,462 F.2d 181(3rd Cir. 1972)
GARY T. SEYLER, APPELLANT IN NO. 71-1655 AND DEBORAH A. SEYLER, HIS WIFE v.
STEUBEN MOTORS, INC. AND VOLKSWAGEN AMERICA, INC.
APPEAL OF DEBORAH A. SEYLER IN No. 71-1656.
Nos. 71-1655, 71-1656.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted Under Third Circuit Rule 12(6) May 25, 1972.
Decided June 6, 1972.
Gerald E. Ruth, York, Pa., for appellant.

James W. Evans, Goldberg, Evans Katzman, Harrisburg, Pa., for Volkswagen of America, Inc.

James K. Thomas, Metzger, Hafer, Keefer, Thomas Wood, Harrisburg, Pa., for Steuben Motors, Inc.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
Before STALEY, ALDISERT and HUNTER, Circuit Judges.
[1] OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM:
[2] In this diversity action the district court found that plaintiff-appellants and Steuben Motors, Inc., one of the two named defendants, were citizens of Pennsylvania, thus destroying the requirement of "complete diversity" necessitated by Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch. (7 U.S.) 267, 2 L.Ed. 435 (1806). See 1 Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 0.60 [8. — 4]. The finding by the court that Steuben's principal place of business was in York, Pennsylvania, was not clearly erroneous.

[3] Appellants' reliance on the doctrines of pendent or ancillary jurisdiction is misplaced. This is not a commingling of a state claim with one based on a federal question, United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs,383 U.S. 715, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966); nor do thePage 182claims come within the ambit of Borror v. Sharon Steel Co.,327 F.2d 165(3d Cir. 1964). Wilson v. American Chain Cable Co.,364 F.2d 558(3d Cir. 1966), and Jacobson v. Atlantic City Hospital,392 F.2d 149(3d Cir. 1968), also relied upon by appellant, dealt with amounts in controversy and not the doctrine of complete diversity.

[4] The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.