Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hica v. Bradley K. Waters

November 7, 2011

HICA EDUCATION LOAN CORP.
v.
BRADLEY K. WATERS



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Josephine Staton Tucker, United States District Judge

CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL

Title:

Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE STATON TUCKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Nancy Boehme N/A

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:

Not Present Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR

LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

On October 18, 2011, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause why Plaintiff's Complaint should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction ("OSC"). (Doc. 7.) Plaintiff responded to the OSC on October 28, 2011. (Pl.'s Reply, Doc. 8.) Having reviewed Plaintiff's Complaint and considered its OSC Reply, the Court has determined that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.

I.BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed this action on August 23, 2011, against Defendant Bradley K. Waters, seeking enforcement of a promissory note. (Compl. ¶¶ 7-13, Doc. 1.) The Complaint asserts Plaintiff is the owner and/or holder of the promissory note, which was executed under the Health Education Assistance Loan ("HEAL") program, see 42 U.S.C § 292 et seq. The HEAL program was created by the federal government to assist students seeking education training in the medical field. HEAL loans are insured by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

II.LEGAL STANDARD

The Court may raise the issue of subject matter jurisdiction at any time, sua sponte. See U.S. Catholic Conference v. Abortion Rights Mobilization, 487 U.S. 72, 79 (1988). "If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Generally, subject matter jurisdiction is based on the presence of complete diversity between the parties, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332, or on the presence of an action "arising under" federal law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The determination as to whether the case "arises under" federal law is governed by the "well-pleaded complaint rule," which provides that "federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.