Hanson v. Health Insurance Innovators and Beech Street Corporation

Filing 12

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: Defendants Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) [Doc. 9] is GRANTED; This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; Defendants Motion for Summary Disposition of Pending Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure [Doc. 11] is DENIED AS MOOT; and The Clerk of the Court shall close its file in this matter. Signed by Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 9/27/11.(KAD)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

GAYLE HANSON,

10

Plaintiff,

11

vs.

12
13

HEALTH INSURANCE
INNOVATORS and STARR
INDEMNITY & LIABILITY,

14
Defendants.
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-10-0709-TUC-CKJ
ORDER

16
Pending before this Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule
17
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) [Doc. 9]. This Court issued its Order [Doc. 10] providing
18
Plaintiff with notice of the requirements for responding to a motion to dismiss pursuant to
19
Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff has not filed a response.
20
21
I.

BACKGROUND

22
On December 1, 2010, Plaintiff filed her pro se Complaint [Doc. 1] in the above23
entitled cause of action. Plaintiff’s Complaint [Doc. 1] alleges a cause of action for breach
24
of contract and bad faith against Defendant insurance companies. In its March 23, 2011
25
Order [Doc. 6], the Court noted that Plaintiff alleges strictly state law causes of action, and
26
that it was unclear whether there is diversity of citizenship. Order 3/23/2011 [Doc. 6] at 2.
27
Defendant has filed its motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
28

1

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

2

In “considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) the district court is not

3

restricted to the face of the pleadings, but may review any evidence, such as affidavits and

4

testimony, to resolve factual disputes concerning the existence of jurisdiction.” Id. (citing

5

Land v. Dollar, 330 U.S. 731, 735 n.4, 67 S.Ct. 1009, 1011 n.4, 91 L.Ed. 1209 (1947)).

6

Further, in attacks on subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), Plaintiffs bear

7

“the burden of proof that jurisdiction does in fact exist.” Thornhill Publ’g Co., Inc. v.

8

General Tel. & Elec. Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1979). Where a party attacks “a

9

complaint’s jurisdictional allegations despite their formal sufficiency . . . [i]t then becomes

10

necessary for the party opposing the motion to present affidavits or any other evidence

11

necessary to satisfy its burden of establishing that the court, in fact, possesses subject matter

12

jurisdiction.” St. Clair v. City of Chico, 880 F.2d 199, 201 (9th Cir. 1989). The Court need

13

not consider unreliable evidence, and “no presumptive truthfulness attaches to plaintiff[s’]

14

allegations.” Id. Moreover, Plaintiffs have an “obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of [their]

15

‘entitlement to relief’ requir[ing] more than labels and conclusions.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

16

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, —, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007).

17
18

III.

ANALYSIS

19

A district court has “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the

20

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Further, a district

21

court has “exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions on claims against the United States, for

22

money damages, . . . for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death caused by the

23

negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting with

24

the scope of his office or employment.” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). A district court also has

25

original jurisdiction “of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or

26

value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between (1) citizens of different

27

States; (2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state; (3) citizens of

28

different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; and
-2-

1

(4) a foreign state, defined in section 1603(a) of this title as plaintiff and citizens of a State

2

or of different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332. “It must appear to a legal certainty that the claim

3

is really for less than the jurisdictional amount to justify dismissal.” St. Paul Mercury

4

Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 289, 58 S.Ct. 586, 590, 82 L.Ed. 845 (1938).

5

“[I]f, from the face of the pleadings, it is apparent, to a legal certainty, that the plaintiff

6

cannot recover the amount claimed or if, from the proofs, the court is satisfied to a like

7

certainty that the plaintiff never was entitled to recover that amount, and that his claim was

8

therefore colorable for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction, the suit will be dismissed.” Id.

9

Here, Plaintiff alleges strictly state law causes of action. See Compl. [Doc. 1].

10

Further, Defendant acknowledges that the parties are from different states. Def.’s Mot. to

11

Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) [Doc. 9] at 2. Defendant

12

challenges Plaintiff’s averment that the amount in controversy is in excess of $75,000.00.

13

See id. Despite Plaintiff’s averment in the Complaint [Doc. 1] before this Court that her

14

damages are $90,000.00; her state court complaint avers damages in the amount of

15

$50,000.00 or less. Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendant’s motion, and as such, has failed

16

to meet her burden of demonstrating subject matter jurisdiction. The Court finds, based upon

17

the record before it, that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this cause of action.

18

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

19

(1)

20

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(1) [Doc. 9] is GRANTED;

21

(2)

This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;

22

(3)

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Disposition of Pending Motion to Dismiss

23

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure [Doc. 11] is DENIED AS MOOT; and

24

(4)

The Clerk of the Court shall close its file in this matter.

25

DATED this 27th day of September, 2011.

26
27
28
-3-