Reedom v. Crappell et al
Filing
19
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' 12 MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT BASED UPON PERSONAL INJURY FILED 09/23/13 AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS 3 APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN DISTRICT COURT WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS AS MOOT. Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASH I on 12/12/2013. ~ Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Complaint Based upon Personal Injury Filed 09/23/13, filed November 21, 2013, is HEREBY GRANTED. Plaintiff's Complaint, filed September 23, 2013, is HEREBY DISMISSED WITH PR EJUDICE. Furthermore, Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, filed September 23, 2013, is HEREBY DENIED AS MOOT. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk's Office to close the case. (ecs, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
ROBERT REEDOM,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
SABRA CRAPPELL and STATE FARM )
MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
)
COMPANY, ET AL.,
)
)
)
Defendants.
_____________________________ )
CIVIL 13-00482 LEK-KSC
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
COMPLAINT BASED UPON PERSONAL INJURY FILED 09/23/13
AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN
DISTRICT COURT WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS AS MOOT
Before the Court are: (1) pro se Plaintiff
Robert Reedom’s (“Plaintiff”) Application to Proceed in District
Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, filed on September 23,
2013 (“Application”); and (2) Defendants Sabra Crappell
(“Crappell”) and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s
(“State Farm,” collectively “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss
Complaint Based upon Personal Injury Filed 09/23/13 (“Motion”),
filed on October 21, 2013.
[Dkt. nos. 3, 12.]
Plaintiff filed
his memorandum in opposition to the Motion on November 18, 2013,
and Defendants filed their reply on November 25, 2013.
[Dkt.
nos. 16, 15.]
The Court finds these matters suitable for disposition
without a hearing pursuant to Rule LR7.2(d) of the Local Rules of
Practice of the United States District Court for the District of
Hawai`I (“Local Rules”).
After careful consideration of the
Motion and Application, supporting and opposing memoranda, and
the relevant legal authority, Defendants’ Motion is HEREBY
GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Application is HEREBY DENIED AS MOOT.
While Plaintiff raises serious and important claims, the Court is
not the proper place to file these claims because a federal court
has jurisdiction only if there is a federal question or if there
is complete diversity of citizenship.
Here, because Plaintiff
and Crappell are both residents of the State of Louisiana, there
is not complete diversity.
Therefore, as set forth more fully
below, this Court does not have the required jurisdiction in this
case.
BACKGROUND
The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff and Crappell are
residents of the State of Louisiana.
The Complaint also alleges
that State Farm is an insurance company located in the State of
Illinois.
[Complaint at ¶¶ 3-5.]
The Complaint asserts the following causes of action:
COUNT NUMBER 1 [(“Count I”)]
6.
THE DEFENDANT IN AN ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS
WAY HAVE [sic] CONTRIBUTED TO THE PERSONAL
INJURIES OF THE PLAINTIFF, . . . IN WHICH HE HAS
SERIOUS BACK AND NECK INJURIES WHICH HAS MADE HIM
DISABLED FOR LIFE. ROBERT REEDOM WAS INJURED ON
APRIL 24, 2013 AS A RESULT OF GROSS NEGLIGENCE AND
HIS LIFE HAS BEEN A NIGHTMARE EVER SENSE [sic].
COUNT NUMBER 2 [(“Count II”)]
7.
THE DEFENDANT IS IN SERIOUS VIOLATIONS OF
STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS WHICH RELATED [sic] TO
2
SERIOUS SPINAL AND BACK INJURIES AS THEY RELATE TO
AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENTS AND INDIVIDUALS[.]
COUNT NUMBER 3 [(“Count III”)]
8.
THE DEFENDANTS DELIBERATELY GROSS NEGLIGENCE
[sic] IN NOT PROVIDING ADEQUATE CARE AND
ASSISTANCE TO THE PLAINTIFF WHO IS INJURED FOR
LIFE[.]
COUNT NUMBER 4 [(“Count IV”)]
9.
THE DEFENDANT TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THE PLAINTIFF
BECAUSE HE IS DISABLED AND THEY HAVE REFUSED TO
PROVIDE THE PLAINTIFF ROBERT WITH AMPLE HEALTH
CARE ASSISTANCE HIM AMPLE ASSISTANCE [sic] WITH
HIS SPINAL AND BACK CARE INJURIES WHICH WERE A
RESULT OF THERE [sic] GROSS NEGLIGENCE IN NOT
PROVIDING A PROPER CARE AND HEALTH CARE
ENVIRONMENT.
COUNT NUMBER 5 [(“Count V”)]
10. THE DEFENDANTS HAS [sic] SHOWN TEY [sic] HAS
[sic] NO INTENTIONS OF PROPERLY TAKING CARE OF THE
PLAINTIFF’S ACCIDENT NEGLIGENCE ACCIDENT RELATED
INJURIES AND HAVE CAUSE [sic] THE PLAINTIFF SEVERE
MENTAL AND PHYSICAL STRESS IN THAT HE MAY NEVER BE
ABLE TO PROPERLY WORK AND LIVE LIFE TO THE HIGH
QUALITY STANDARDS THE [sic] HE ONCE LIVED[.]
[Id. at ¶¶ 6-10 (emphases omitted).]
Plaintiff seeks damages in
the amount of $20 million.
STANDARD
I.
Motion to Dismiss
This district court has stated:
Plaintiff is appearing pro se; consequently,
the court liberally construes her pleadings.
Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir.
1987) (“The Supreme Court has instructed the
federal courts to liberally construe the ‘inartful
pleading’ of pro se litigants.” (citing Boag v.
MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per
curiam))). The court also recognizes that
“[u]nless it is absolutely clear that no amendment
can cure the defect . . . a pro se litigant is
3
entitled to notice of the complaint’s deficiencies
and an opportunity to amend prior to dismissal of
the action.” Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d
245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995); see also Lopez v. Smith,
203 F.3d 1122, 1126 (9th. [sic] Cir. 2000).
. . . .
. . . “Federal courts are courts of limited
jurisdiction,” possessing “only that power
authorized by Constitution and statute.” United
States v. Marks, 530 F.3d 799, 810 (9th Cir. 2008)
(quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511
U.S. 375, 377 (1994)). The assumption is that the
district court lacks jurisdiction. See Kokkonen,
511 U.S. at 377. Accordingly, a “party invoking
the federal court’s jurisdiction has the burden of
proving the actual existence of subject matter
jurisdiction.” Thompson v. McCombe, 99 F.3d 352,
353 (9th Cir. 1996).
Paet v. Fernandez, Civil No. 13–00079 JMS–KSC, 2013 WL 840224, at
*1 (D. Hawai`I Mar. 5, 2013) (alterations in Paet).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) permits a
motion to dismiss a claim for “failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted[.]”
Under Rule 12(b)(6), review is generally
limited to the contents of the complaint.
Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d
979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). . . .
On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss,
all allegations of material fact are taken as
true and construed in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party. Fed’n of
African Am. Contractors v. City of Oakland,
96 F.3d 1204, 1207 (9th Cir. 1996). To
survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter to “state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929
(2007). “A claim has facial plausibility
4
when the plaintiff pleads factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for
the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
--- U.S. ----, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.
Ed. 2d 868 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of
the elements of a cause of action, supported
by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at
554, 127 S. Ct. 1955).
Hawaii Motorsports Inv., Inc. v. Clayton Group
Servs., Inc., 693 F. Supp. 2d 1192, 1195-96 (D.
Hawai`I 2010).
This Court, however, notes that the tenet
that the court must accept as true all of the
allegations contained in the complaint — “is
inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Iqbal, 129 S.
Ct. at 1949. Factual allegations that only permit
the court to infer “the mere possibility of
misconduct” do not show that the pleader is
entitled to relief. Id. at 1950.
“Dismissal without leave to amend is improper
unless it is clear that the complaint could not be
saved by any amendment.” Harris v. Amgen, Inc.,
573 F.3d 728, 737 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation and
quotation marks omitted).
Enriquez v. Countrywide Home Loans, FSB, 814 F. Supp. 2d 1042,
1055 (D. Hawai`I 2011) (some citations omitted).
DISCUSSION
I.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Defendants argue, inter alia, that this Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over the instant action, pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).
Court agrees.
[Mem. in Supp. of Motion at 3.]
The
“In order for a claim to be properly in the United
States District Court, the Court must have either (1) federal
5
question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or (2) diversity
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.”
Smallwood v. NCSOFT, Civ.
No. 09-00497 ACK-BMK, 2009 WL 3538469, at *1 (D. Hawai`I Oct. 29,
2009).
Even liberally construed, the Complaint does not allege
a basis for federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331.1
The Complaint alleges violations of federal law,
although it is unclear as to whether the allegation is against
one or both Defendants.
[Complaint at ¶ 7.]
This statement,
however, is merely conclusory, and is unsupported by factual
allegations.
Federal courts may preside over state law claims
pursuant to their diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
“Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between the
parties-each defendant must be a citizen of a different state
from each plaintiff.”
In re Digimarc Corp. Derivative Litig.,
549 F.3d 1223, 1234 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted).
The
Complaint, however, does not allege a basis for diversity
jurisdiction because it does not allege complete diversity of
citizenship.
Plaintiff asserts that he is a resident of the
State of Louisiana.
[Id. at ¶ 3.]
Although diversity may exist
between Plaintiff and State Farm, the Complaint alleges that
1
28 U.S.C. § 1331 states: “The district courts shall have
original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”
6
Crappell is also a resident of the State of Louisiana.
¶¶ 4-5.]
[Id. at
The Court therefore finds that complete diversity does
not exist in this case for jurisdictional purposes.
This Court
concludes that it does not have jurisdiction over the claims
alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint, and therefore this Court cannot
grant Plaintiff any relief on his claims.
II.
Failure to State a Claim
The Court notes that, even if Plaintiff were able to
meet his burden in establishing subject matter jurisdiction, the
Complaint does not contain factual allegations to support his
claims.
Even construing the Complaint liberally, the Court
cannot identify any plausible ground for any of Plaintiff’s
claims.
See Iqbal, 556, U.S. at 678 (“To survive a motion to
dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face.’” (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
547 (2007))).
Insofar as the Court concludes that Plaintiff has
failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,
Defendants’ Motion is HEREBY GRANTED.
The Court further
concludes that any amendment would be futile, and HEREBY
DISMISSES the Complaint WITH PREJUDICE.
See Harris, 573 F.3d at
737.
Finally, insofar as the Court herein dismisses the
Complaint, Plaintiff’s Application is HEREBY DENIED AS MOOT.
7
CONCLUSION
On the basis of the foregoing, Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss Complaint Based upon Personal Injury Filed 09/23/13,
filed November 21, 2013, is HEREBY GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s
Complaint, filed September 23, 2013, is HEREBY DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
Furthermore, Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in
District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, filed
September 23, 2013, is HEREBY DENIED AS MOOT.
The Court DIRECTS
the Clerk’s Office to close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, December 12, 2013.
/s/ Leslie E. Kobayashi
Leslie E. Kobayashi
United States District Judge
ROBERT REEDOM V. SABRA CRAPPELL, ET AL.; CIVIL NO. 13-00482 LEKKSC; ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT BASED
UPON PERSONAL INJURY FILED 09/23/13 AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN DISTRICT COURT WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES
OR COSTS AS MOOT
8
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?