Jones v. Chamjock et al

Filing 20

ORDER granting 5 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by Defendant Shannon Selvidge. The 7 Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all pending motions and close this case. Signed by Judge Linda R Reade on 06/08/2018. (copy w/NEF mailed to Pltf) (jjh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
EASTERN DIVISION

DALTON D. JONES, JR.,
Plaintiff,

No. 18-CV-2020-LRR

vs.

ORDER

GATBEL CHAMJOCK et al.,
Defendants.
____________________
I. INTRODUCTION
The matter before the court is Defendant Shannon Selvidge’s Motion to Dismiss
(“Motion”) (docket no. 5).1
II. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On April 23, 2018, Plaintiff Dalton D. Jones, Jr. filed an Amended Complaint
(docket no. 7), alleging that Defendants Gatbel Chamjock, Nyamission Jock, Shannon
Selvidge and Area Wide Realty, LLC (“Area Wide Realty”) (collectively, “Defendants”)2
committed fraud by “misrepresenting” a property that Jones purchased in Logan County,
Colorado. See Amended Complaint at 3. In the Amended Complaint, Jones alleges that
he is a citizen of the state of Colorado. See id. Jones makes the following allegations
regarding the citizenship of Defendants: (1) Chamjock and Jock are citizens of the state
of Iowa; (2) Selvidge is a citizen of the state of Colorado; and (3) Area Wide Realty “is

The Motion seeks to dismiss Jones’s Complaint (docket no. 1), which was filed
on March 29, 2018. The court subsequently granted Jones’s Motion to Amend Complaint
(docket no. 3), noting that the Motion would “be construed as moving to dismiss the
[A]mended [C]omplaint.” May 2, 2018 Order (docket no. 6) at 2.
1

Jones subsequently dismissed all claims against named Defendants Kelli Ferkovich
and Stewart Title Company. See May 29, 2018 Order (docket no. 15) at 1.
2

a Colorado company.” Id.
On April 30, 2018, Selvidge filed the Motion. On May 4, 2018, Jones filed a
Resistance (docket no. 10). Neither party requests oral argument, and the court finds that
oral argument is unnecessary. The matter is fully submitted and ready for decision.
III. ANALYSIS
In the Motion, Selvidge states that Jones’s claim “appears to be one of common-law
fraud” and notes that he “has not identified a single federal statute or constitutional
provision entitling him to relief.” Brief in Support of Motion (docket no. 5-1) at 4.
Selvidge argues that, in the absence of federal-question jurisdiction, Jones must establish
the elements of diversity jurisdiction. Id. at 4-5; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (defining
federal-question jurisdiction); 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (defining diversity jurisdiction).
Selvidge contends that, because there is not complete diversity among the parties in this
case, the court should dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Brief
in Support of Motion at 4.
In the Resistance, Jones does not point to any federal statutes or constitutional
provisions upon which his claim is based. See generally Resistance. Instead, he relies on
the elements of common-law fraud to support his claim. See id. at 4 (listing the elements
of common-law fraud).

Jones, however, argues that the court has subject-matter

jurisdiction over the case because the previous owners of the house, from which he
purchased the house, are citizens of Iowa and the citizenship of the previous owners “is
the key element in assigning jurisdiction.” Id. Jones contends that the citizenship of the
remaining Defendants “is moot.” Id.
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction . . . .” Mamot Feed Lot &
Trucking v. Hobson, 539 F.3d 898, 902 (8th Cir. 2008). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1) requires the court to dismiss actions where it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.
When considering a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, the court

2

“accept[s] all factual allegations in the complaint as true and view[s] them in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party.” Id. at 901-02. For the reasons set forth below, the
court finds that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this case.
Jones misstates the requirements of diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction
over state law claims requires both: “an amount in controversy greater than $75,000 and
complete diversity of citizenship among the litigants.” OnePoint Sols., LLC v. Borchert,
486 F.3d 342, 346 (8th Cir. 2007); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) (“The district courts
shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds
the sum or value of $75,000 . . . and is between . . . citizens of different States.”).
“Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity, that is where no defendant holds
citizenship in the same state where any plaintiff holds citizenship.” Cascades Dev. of
Minn., LLC v. Nat’l Specialty Ins., 675 F.3d 1095, 1098 (8th Cir. 2012) (quotations
omitted). Therefore, for the court to have diversity jurisdiction, complete diversity
between Jones and each Defendant must exist.
In the Amended Complaint, Jones alleges that he is a citizen of Colorado. See
Amended Complaint at 3. Jones also alleges that Selvidge is a citizen of Colorado and
Area Wide Realty “is a Colorado company.” Id. Accepting these allegations as true, as
the court must in addressing a motion to dismiss, the court finds that the Amended
Complaint fails to establish complete diversity between Jones and Defendants because
Selvidge and Area Wide Realty are allegedly citizens of Colorado, the same state in which
Jones holds citizenship. As discussed, Jones has also failed to establish federal-question
jurisdiction as his claim is based entirely on common-law fraud. See Resistance at 4; see
also 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil
actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”).

3

Accordingly, the court shall dismiss this case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.3
IV. CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, the Amended Complaint (docket no. 7) is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to TERMINATE all
pending motions and CLOSE THIS CASE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 8th day of June, 2018.

Because the court has determined that it does not have subject-matter jurisdiction
over this case, it will not address Selvidge’s alternative argument that the Amended
Complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. See Motion at 11; see also
Crawford v. F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd., 267 F.3d 760, 764 (8th Cir. 2001) (“[A] federal
district court may not dismiss a case on the merits by hypothesizing subject-matter
jurisdiction.”).
3

4