Blunt v. Farmers Insurance Company et al
Filing
16
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff Genorval Blunt's Motion for Leave to File Petition for Damages in Excess of $100,000.00, Personal Injury-Vehicle (Doc. #4) and Motion for Leave to Amend Pleadings in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Chad Berendzen (Doc. #13) are denied as futile. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Chad Berendzen's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #11) for lack of subject matterjurisdiction is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDE RED that defendant Farmers Insurance Company's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #9) for failure to state a claim is denied without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff Genorval Blunt's Motion for Leave to File a Settlement Prop osal Into Evidence (Doc. #12) is denied without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this cause is hereby dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Magistrate Judge Frederick R. Buckles on 6/5/2012. (NCL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
GENORVAL BLUNT,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., )
)
Defendants.
)
No.
4:12CV344 FRB
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Presently pending before the Court are multiple motions
filed by the parties, and specifically:
plaintiff’s Motion for
Leave to File Petition for Damages in Excess of $100,000.00,
Personal Injury-Vehicle (Doc. #4); defendant Farmers Insurance
Company’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #9); defendant Chad Berendzen’s
Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #11); plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File
a Settlement Proposal Into Evidence (Doc. #12); and plaintiff’s
Motion for Leave to Amend Pleadings in Opposition to Motion to
Dismiss of Defendant Chad Berendzen (Doc. #13).
All matters are
pending before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge, with
consent of the parties, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
On February 24, 2012, plaintiff Genorval Blunt filed the
instant cause of action in this Court alleging that defendant Chad
Berendzen’s negligent operation of his motor vehicle caused a
collision between his and plaintiff’s vehicle, causing injury to
plaintiff.
Plaintiff
further
claims
that
defendant
Farmers
Insurance Company, Berendzen’s insurer, has failed or refused to
settle
plaintiff’s
defendant
Berendzen
claims
are
against
residents
Berendzen.
of
the
Plaintiff
State
of
and
Missouri.
Plaintiff avers that defendant Farmers Insurance Company does
business in the State of California.
Plaintiff seeks damages in
excess of $100,000.00.
Defendant Berendzen now seeks to dismiss this cause
arguing that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the
matter inasmuch as complete diversity is lacking
parties.
between the
Defendant Farmers Insurance Company seeks to dismiss
plaintiff’s Complaint arguing that plaintiff has failed to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted inasmuch as plaintiff
alleges
only
that
Berendzen’s insurer.
Farmers
Insurance
Company
is
defendant
“In every federal case the court must be
satisfied that it has jurisdiction before it turns to the merits of
other legal arguments.” Carlson v. Arrowhead Concrete Works, Inc.,
445 F.3d 1046, 1050 (8th Cir. 2006); see also Filla v. Norfolk S.
Ry. Co., 336 F.3d 806, 811 (8th Cir. 2003) (federal court has no
power to decide merits of case over which it has no jurisdiction).
Accordingly, the Court turns first to defendant Berendzen’s claim
that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the cause.
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. The
requirement that jurisdiction be established as a threshold matter
springs from the nature and limits of the judicial power of the
-2-
United States and is inflexible and without exception.” Kessler v.
National
Enter.,
Inc.,
347
F.3d
1076,
1081
(8th
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Cir.
2003)
If a defendant
challenges a plaintiff’s allegations of jurisdictional facts, the
plaintiff
bears
competent proof.
the
burden
of
supporting
his
allegations
by
Hedberg v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 350
F.2d 924, 929 (8th Cir. 1965); Veeder v. Omaha Tribe of Neb., 864.
F. Supp. 889, 896 n.8 (N.D. Iowa 1994).
In
diversity
actions,
federal
courts
have
original
jurisdiction where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or
value of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs, and the
matter is between citizens of different States.
1332(a).
28 U.S.C. §
“Complete diversity of citizenship exists where no
defendant holds citizenship in the same state where any plaintiff
holds citizenship.”
OnePoint Solutions, LLC v. Borchert, 486 F.3d
342, 346 (8th Cir. 2007). To determine subject matter jurisdiction
in diversity cases, the Court must look to the parties’ status at
the time the lawsuit was filed.
Id.
At the time plaintiff commenced this action, he and
defendant Berendzen were both citizens of the State of Missouri.
As such, at the commencement of this lawsuit, original jurisdiction
on the basis of diversity was lacking.
Plaintiff’s proposed
amended pleadings do nothing to cure this jurisdictional defect.
Cf. Wilson v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 838 F.2d 286, 290 (8th Cir.
-3-
1998) (citing Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 75 (1976)).
plaintiff
presented
anything
to
the
Court
Nor has
demonstrating
that
federal question jurisdiction exists over the cause or that any
other basis exists over which this Court may exercise original
subject matter jurisdiction. A review of plaintiff’s Complaint, as
well as his proposed pleadings and other filings with the Court,
shows this cause of action to be based exclusively on state law.
Because diversity of jurisdiction is lacking in the
cause, and no other basis for federal jurisdiction appears on the
face of plaintiff’s Complaint, the matter is not properly in
federal court and must be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s proposed amended pleadings do nothing to
cure this jurisdictional defect.
plaintiff’s
proposed
amended
pleadings will be denied.
Because of the futility of
pleadings,
leave
to
file
such
United States ex rel. Joshi v. St.
Luke’s Hosp., Inc., 441 F.3d 552, 557-58 (8th Cir. 2006). Finally,
because the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to
determine the merits of plaintiff’s claims, defendant Farmers
Insurance Company’s request for this Court to determine its motion
to dismiss for failure to state a claim should be denied, but
without prejudice in the event this cause of action is refiled in
a proper forum.
Accordingly, for all of the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff Genorval Blunt’s
-4-
Motion
for
Leave
to
File
Petition
for
Damages
in
Excess
of
$100,000.00, Personal Injury-Vehicle (Doc. #4) and Motion for Leave
to Amend Pleadings in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss of Defendant
Chad Berendzen (Doc. #13) are denied as futile.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Chad Berendzen’s
Motion
to
Dismiss
(Doc.
#11)
for
lack
of
subject
matter
jurisdiction is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Farmers Insurance
Company’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #9) for failure to state a claim
is denied without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff Genorval Blunt’s
Motion for Leave to File a Settlement Proposal Into Evidence (Doc.
#12) is denied without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this cause is hereby dismissed
without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated this
5th
day of June, 2012.
-5-
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?