United States District Court, D. Kansas
ROBERT L. HUNTER, Plaintiff,
VERDELL E. BUGG, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
L. TEETER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Plaintiff Robert L. Hunter brings this action against Verdell and
Earlene Bugg, People's Insurance Group,  and David
Kellett, a claims specialist at State Farm. Doc. 5.
Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for lack
of subject-matter jurisdiction. Docs. 14, 21, 23. Because
Plaintiff fails to establish a basis for subject-matter
jurisdiction, the Court grants the motions and dismisses this
case without prejudice.
the underlying allegations are difficult to discern,
Plaintiff's claims stem from a fire and insurance
dispute. Plaintiff leased property in Topeka, Kansas, from
Verdell and Earlene Bugg. On one occasion, Verdell Bugg
restored electricity at the leased property. At some point, a
fire ensued at the leased property and caused damage.
People's Insurance Group denied coverage because Verdell
Bugg failed to make payments.
then filed this lawsuit against Defendants and alleged
diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff is a citizen of Kansas. In
the amended complaint, he lists Kansas addresses for Verdell
Bugg, Earlene Bugg, and People's Insurance Group, and a
Georgia address for Kellett. Verdell and Earlene Bugg and
People's Insurance Group answered the amended complaint,
but Kellett moved to dismiss. Subsequently, Verdell and
Earlene Bugg and People's Insurance Group also moved to
dismiss. All the motions are under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) and argue that Plaintiff fails to
establish subject-matter jurisdiction.
12(b)(1) motion presents either “(1) a facial attack on
the sufficiency of the complaint's allegations as to
subject matter jurisdiction; or (2) a challenge to the actual
facts upon which subject matter jurisdiction is based.”
Ruiz v. McDonnell, 299 F.3d 1173, 1180 (10th Cir.
2002). When the motion to dismiss is a facial attack, the
Court presumes the veracity of the complaint's
seek to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint in its entirety
arguing the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. For the
following reasons, the Court agrees that Plaintiff fails to
establish diversity jurisdiction and that dismissal is
as the party seeking to invoke subject-matter jurisdiction,
bears the burden of establishing it. Full Life Hospice,
LLC v. Sebelius, 709 F.3d 1012, 1016 (10th Cir. 2013).
There are two primary avenues for subject-matter
jurisdiction: federal question and diversity. See 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a). Plaintiff does not assert
federal-question jurisdiction, and this Court discerns no
federal law implicating its jurisdiction. Thus, Plaintiff
must establish diversity jurisdiction to defeat these
jurisdiction requires diversity of citizenship among the
parties and an amount in controversy over $75, 000.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Plaintiff alleges
$100, 000 in damages, which satisfies the amount in
controversy component. Doc. 5 at 4. But he fails to establish
diversity of citizenship. Specifically, “[d]iversity
jurisdiction requires complete diversity-no plaintiff may be
a citizen of the same state as any defendant.”
Grynberg v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., 805
F.3d 901, 905 (10th Cir. 2015). Based on the allegations,
Plaintiff, Defendants Verdell and Earlene Bugg, and Defendant
People's Insurance Group are citizens of Kansas. Thus,
complete diversity is lacking. Because Plaintiff fails to
establish diversity jurisdiction, the Court lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction and must dismiss this case
COURT THEREFORE ORDERS that Defendants' motions to
dismiss (Docs. 14, 21, 23) are GRANTED. This ...