Ganiyu Ayinla Jaiyeola v. Robert Allen Brundage

Question 1 presented is: Whether a District Court can nullify an exist­ ing diversity jurisdiction by doing sua sponte conversion of one of Plaintiff’s two witnesses into Plaintiff’s second Defendant without a hearing or full briefing; an action that de­ stroyed Plaintiff’s diversity jurisdiction, de­ nied Plaintiff due process, and resulted in the dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. “Because a district court has no discretion not to abide by governing law, an erroneous legal conclusion deserves no deference on appeal. See Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 100 (1996); United States v. Titterington, 374 F.3d 453, 456 (6th Cir. 2004).”1 The two primary sources of subject-matter juris­ diction of the federal courts are diversity jurisdiction and federal question jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdic­ tion generally permits individuals to bring claims in federal court where the claim exceeds $75,000 and the parties are citizens of different states. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. “We have an “independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the United States v. LaDeau, No. 12-6611 (6th Cir. 2013).