Corpus: 543,223 opinions · 3,177 judges · newest 2026-06-23 · expanding Coverage ↗
Opinion

govinfo:USCOURTS-ncmd-1_25-cv-01087-0

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina · 2026-05-22

· GavelSight synced 2026-09-06 03:52:39



same state. See Central W. Va. Energy Co., Inc. v. Mountain State Carbon, LLC, 636 F.3d 101, 
102 (4th Cir. 2011) ("For federal diversity jurisdiction purposes, a corporation is a citizen 
of the states in which it has been incorporated and in which it has its principal place of 
business." (emphasis added)). The Court therefore does not have diversity jurisdiction. 
Having found neither federal question nor diversity jurisdiction, the Court 
concludes it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case. "[W]hen a federal court 
concludes that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the complaint 
in its entirety." Arbaugh, 546 U.S. at 514. 
The Court GRANTS ADUSA's motion and the case is DIMISSED WITHOUT 
PREJUDICE AND WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) ("The court 
should freely give leave [to amend a pleading] when justice so requires."). Based on the 
citations to and reliance solely on state statutes and the reference to state Superior Courts, 
see Dkt. 1 at 1, 3, it appears to the Court that Campbell intended to bring this case in state 
court. However, if Campbell intends to refile in federal court, 5 and should Campbell 
5 The Court, at this juncture, believes dismissal without prejudice is warranted because 
although there are deficiencies in the subject matter jurisdiction pleading it is at least 
possible that they could be rectified in an amended complaint. For instance, although 
ADUSA claims that Campbell failed to properly exhaust his administrative remedies 
prior to filing this case, see Dkt. 11 at 12, that does not appear to be the case. A plaintiff is 
required to file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC before they may file a suit under 
the ADEA. See Jones v. Calvert Grp., Ltd., 551 F.3d 297, 300 (4th Cir. 2009). Campbell has 
done so and attached the right-to-sue letter. Dkt. 1-2; see also Goines v. Valley Cmty. Servs. 
Bd., 822 F.3d 159, 165-66 (4th Cir. 2016) (a court deciding on a motion to dismiss should 
7 


Passage view · GavelSight