Richmond et al v. Original Juan and Spicin foods et al

Filing 14

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Plaintiff Courtney Richmond is hereby required to show good cause in writing to the Honorable Daniel D. Crabtree, United States District Judge, on or before December 8, 2021, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James on 11/17/21. Mailed to pro se party Courtney Richmond by regular mail. (ct)

Case 2:21-cv-02500-DDC-TJJ Document 14 Filed 11/17/21 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
COURTNEY RICHMOND and
CHEF COURTNEY’S HOMEMADE
BBQ SAUCE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ORIGINAL JUAN AND SPICIN
FOODS, et al.,
Defendants.

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

Case No: 21-cv-2500-DDC-TJJ

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
TO PLAINTIFF COURTNEY RICHMOND:
This case was recently transferred to the District of Kansas. Upon review of the
Complaint, the Court finds that federal jurisdiction is not clearly stated on the face of the
Complaint. The Court has an independent obligation to satisfy itself that subject matter
jurisdiction is proper,1 and “must dismiss the cause at any stage of the proceedings in which it
becomes apparent that jurisdiction is lacking.”2
It appears that Plaintiff3 brings a breach of contract claim, which is a state law claim and
not a federal claim. In the absence of a federal question, Plaintiff must allege diversity
jurisdiction.4 Plaintiff provides an address for himself in South Dakota. Residency, however, is

1

Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 434 (2011).

2

Penteco Corp. Ltd. P’ship v. Union Gas Sys., Inc., 929 F.2d 1519, 1521 (10th Cir. 1991); see also 28 U.S.C. §
1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the
case shall be remanded.”). 
3

There are two named Plaintiffs, but one of them appears to be a business entity of some type. A business entity
may not proceed without counsel, so this Order is addressed only to pro se Plaintiff Courtney Richmond.

4

See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 

Case 2:21-cv-02500-DDC-TJJ Document 14 Filed 11/17/21 Page 2 of 3

not the same thing as citizenship for purposes of establishing diversity.5 Another problem is that
Plaintiff does not allege the citizenship of Defendants. The contract attached to the Complaint
states that Defendant Original Juan Specialty Foods, Inc. is a Kansas corporation,6 and the
Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement states that Defendant Original Juan Specialty
Foods, Inc.’s principal place of business is in Kansas City, Kansas.7 From these documents, the
Court can infer that Defendant Original Juan Specialty Foods, Inc. is a Kansas corporation. But
the Complaint does not state the citizenship of the other Defendants, Kit Mayfield and Josh
(LNU). Neither does it state an amount in controversy, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332. If
Plaintiff intends to pursue his case in federal court, he must allege a source of federal
jurisdiction.8 If Plaintiff proceeds on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, he must allege the
citizenship of all parties and a sufficient amount in controversy.
Plaintiff may be attempting to allege a federal question under federal law governing
intellectual property, but, if so, the claim is far from clear. He does not cite a federal statute or
other source of federal jurisdiction.9 The Court therefore cannot find that federal question
jurisdiction exists from the face of the Complaint.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Plaintiff Courtney Richmond
is hereby required to show good cause in writing to the Honorable Daniel D. Crabtree, United

5

Whitelock v. Leatherman, 460 F.2d 507, 514 (10th Cir. 1972). 

6

ECF No. 1 at 5. 

7

Id. at 7.

8
The Court also notes that Plaintiff has filed a motion to add parties (ECF No. 6). The citizenship of the proposed
additional Defendants is not alleged. If Plaintiff asserts diversity jurisdiction exists, he will also need to identify the
citizenship of the proposed additional parties. If any one of them is a citizen of the same state as Plaintiff, then they
will also destroy diversity jurisdiction.
9

See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

2

Case 2:21-cv-02500-DDC-TJJ Document 14 Filed 11/17/21 Page 3 of 3

States District Judge, on or before December 8, 2021, why this action should not be dismissed
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated November 17, 2021, at Kansas City, Kansas.

Teresa J. James
U. S. Magistrate Judge

3