Munoz v. State Farm Ins Co, et al

No. 99-40740
-1-
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-40740
Summary Calendar
PEDRO MUNOZ, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
ORALIA MUNOZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY; CARRIE TOUSANT;
JAIME ZAPATA, JR.; SCOTT A. KEMP,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. M-99-CV-42
--------------------
March 3, 2000
Before JONES, DUHÉ, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Pedro and Oralia Munoz appeal the district court’s sua
sponte dismissal of this civil action for lack of federal
subject-matter jurisdiction. They argue that the district court
had diversity jurisdiction because they are citizens of Texas and
State Farm Lloyd’s principal place of business is in Illinois and
because the amount in controversy exceeds $50,000. Because the

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 99-40740
-2-
Munozes named other nondiverse parties, including Carrie Tousant,
Jaime Zapata, Jr., and Scott A. Kemp, the district court did not
err in dismissing the civil action for lack of federal subject-
matter jurisdiction. See Owen Equip. and Erect. Co. v. Kroger,
437 U.S. 365, 373 (1978); Whalen v. Carter, 954 F.2d 1087, 1094
(5th Cir. 1992). The Munozes’ appeal is without merit and is
thus frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th
Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous.
See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.

-- 2 of 2 --