Young et al v. Holloman et al

Filing 79

ORDER denying 76 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. The Court directs Plaintiffs to file a FOURTH Amended Complaint by 8/30/2019. Answers are due 7 days after the amended complaint is filed. The scheduling order will not be amended. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes III on August 26, 2019. (hnc) Modified text on 8/26/2019 (jas).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
TRINA MARIE YOUNG, et al.
v.

PLAINTIFFS
No. 2:18-CV-02055

CRAIG ANTHONY HOLLOMAN, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

Before the Court are Separate Defendant Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.’s (“RTR”) motion to
dismiss (Doc. 76) for lack of jurisdiction and brief in support of its motion. No response has been
filed but no response is necessary. RTR argues that Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint should
be dismissed because Plaintiffs have failed to follow a previous order of this Court to properly
plead a defendant’s citizenship. The motion will be DENIED.
Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint alleges that H&P Leasing, Inc. (“H&P”) “is a
Mississippi corporation, and can be served with process at its Registered Agent[’s]” address. (Doc.
73, p. 3, ¶ 10). RTR is correct that the Court has already ordered Plaintiffs to cure identical
jurisdictional deficiencies. On July 2, 2018, the Court reminded Plaintiffs that they “must also
allege [a corporation’s] principal place of business to demonstrate this Court has original
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).” (Doc. 19, p. 2). Though the Court is satisfied with the
allegations as they relate to RTR—the subject of the Court’s July 2 order—Plaintiffs must
supplement the jurisdictional allegations against H&P.1 There is little doubt that the present

The Court has construed RTR’s motion only as a challenge to the sufficiency of
jurisdictional allegations against it, not as a challenge to the legitimacy of those allegations. To
the extent RTR seeks to challenge the allegations of citizenship made against it, it may file a motion
to dismiss. GMAC Commercial Credit LLC v. Dillard Dept. Stores, Inc., 357 F.3d 827, 828 (8th
Cir. 2004) (“Any party or the court may, at any time, raise the issue of subject matter
jurisdiction.”).
1

1

jurisdictional deficiencies are inexcusable, especially given that Plaintiffs added H&P as a named
defendant after the Court entered its earlier order. In light of the age of this case, however, and
the Court’s preference for resolution on the merits (if the court has jurisdiction to reach those
merits), Plaintiffs will be permitted an opportunity to amend.
The Court directs Plaintiffs to file a Fourth Amended Complaint by Friday, August
30, 2019, with allegations sufficient to determine whether this Court has subject matter
jurisdiction. Answers are due 7 days after the amended complaint is filed. The scheduling order
will not be amended. Failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this action for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s motion (Doc. 76) to dismiss is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of August, 2019.

/s/P. K. Holmes, III
P.K. HOLMES, III
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

2