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-