Nails v. AAA Auto Insurance et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 7 Motion for Reconsideration of 6 Order of Dismissal filed by Angela Nails. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 7/29/15. (CAR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
AAA AUTO INSURANCE, et al.,
Case No. 4:15-CV-638-JAR
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Angela Nails’ Motion to Reconsider the
Court’s May 1, 2015 Order dismissing the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc.
No. 7) For the following reasons, the motion will be denied.
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this action against Defendant AAA Auto Insurance
alleging that AAA refused to pay her damages and medical bills resulting from a car accident in
February 2015. (Compl., Doc. No. 1) Because it was not apparent from the pleadings that
diversity jurisdiction existed between the parties, the Court directed Plaintiff to show cause why
her action should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 4) After reviewing
Plaintiff’s response (Doc. No. 5), the Court dismissed the case without prejudice pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 6)
Plaintiff now urges the Court to reconsider this Order.
Motion to reconsider
Where a motion to reconsider is made in response to a final order, the Eighth Circuit has
instructed district courts to construe it as a motion under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Schoffstall v. Henderson, 223 F.3d 818, 827 (8th Cir .2000). Rule 59(e) motions
serve a “limited function of correcting manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly
discovered evidence.” Innovative Home Health Care, Inc. v. P.T.-O.T. Assocs. of the Black
Hills, 141 F.3d 1284, 1286 (8th Cir.1998) (internal quotations omitted). Rule 59(e) does not
afford an opportunity to present evidence or legal argument that could have been offered prior to
entry of judgment. See Freeman v. Busch, 349 F.3d 582, 589 (8th Cir.2003). The Court has
“broad discretion in determining whether to open a judgment pursuant to a Rule 59(e) motion.”
Roudybush v. Zabel, 813 F.2d 173, 178 (8th Cir.1987).
As explained in its May 1, 2015 Order, Plaintiff’s complaint failed to plead or establish
complete diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Under Rule 12(h)(3), the Court must
dismiss any action over which it determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff
provides no explanation in her motion for reconsideration as to how her complaint “is within the
Jurisdiction, Subject Matter Jurisdiction and limit of damages.” Furthermore, Plaintiff does not
claim the Court committed a “manifest error of law or fact” in dismissing the case. For these
reasons, Plaintiffs' motion to reconsider will be denied.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Angela Nails’ Motion to Reconsider  is
Dated this 29th day of July, 2015.
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?