Tansil v. Honda Motor Company, Ltd. et al

Filing 34

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion of defendant Honda Motor Company, Ltd., to dismiss [Doc. # 13 ] is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion of defendant D.R.K. Investment Co. d/b/a Mungenast St. Louis Acura, to dismiss [Doc. # 24 ] is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other pending motions are denied as moot. A separate order of dismissal will be entered. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 10/28/2016. (CLO)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JUANITA TANSIL,
Plaintiff,
vs.
HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, LTD., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:16-CV-1220 (CEJ)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the defendants’ separate motions to
dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff, who proceeds pro se, has
filed a response in opposition.
I.

Background

Plaintiff Juanita Tansil alleges that she was injured while standing in her
driveway on Cambridge Lane in St. Louis, Missouri, when her vehicle, a 1999 Acura,
moved backwards and struck her with the open door. She argues that the car had a
defective ignition interlock. On July 25, 2016, she filed this action, asserting claims
for strict products liability against Honda Motor Company, Ltd., and DRK
Investment Co., d/b/a Mungenast St. Louis Acura (Mungenast).

She asserts

subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), and alleges that she is
a citizen of Missouri and that the defendants are corporations established under the
laws of other states and countries.1 [Docs. #1, #5, #10 at ¶6]. However, plaintiff
has also pleaded that defendant Mungenast is a corporation with its principal place
1

She filed amended complaints on August 15th and August 17, 2016. The jurisdictional
allegations remain unchanged. [Docs. #5, #10].

of business in Missouri. Second Amended Complaint ¶5. Defendants move for
dismissal arguing that diversity of citizenship is lacking on the face of the
complaint.
II.

Legal Standard

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; they possess only that power
authorized by Constitution and statute. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of
America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The court is obligated to dismiss any action
over which it does not have subject matter jurisdiction. “In order to properly
dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), the complaint
must be successfully challenged on its face or on the factual truthfulness of its
averments.” Titus v. Sullivan, 4 F.3d 590, 593 (8th Cir. 1993) (citing Osborn v.
United States, 918 F.2d 724, 729 n. 6 (8th Cir. 1990)). In a facial challenge to
jurisdiction, all of the factual allegations concerning jurisdiction are presumed to be
true and the motion is successful if the plaintiff fails to allege an element necessary
for subject matter jurisdiction. Id.
III.

Discussion

Diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 requires an amount in
controversy greater than $75,000 and complete diversity of citizenship among the
litigants. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). “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).

The

district court's “determination of citizenship for the purpose of diversity is a mixed
question of law and fact, but mainly fact.” Altimore v. Mount Mercy College, 420
F.3d 763, 768 (8th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). The existence of diversity of

2

citizenship is determined at the time the suit is instituted, and not when the cause
of action arose. Smith v. Snerling, 354 U.S. 91, 93 n. 1 (1957).
The parties do not dispute that defendant Mungenast is a Missouri
corporation with its principal place of business in Missouri. See Patrick Sanders
Affidavit [Doc. #24 at 4]. Thus, defendant Mungenast is a citizen of Missouri for the
purposes of diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Plaintiff alleges that she
also is a citizen of Missouri. Assuming the truth of this allegation, as the Court must
for a facial challenge, there is no diversity of citizenship and the case must be
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The Court notes that, in opposition to the motions to dismiss, plaintiff asserts
that she is really a citizen of Michigan where she was a teacher for 28 years. She
states that she is in Missouri on an extended stay in order to handle legal matters
in connection with the deaths of her parents and brother in 2010 and 2011. [Doc.
#15 at 4]. She states that she will return to Michigan upon completion of court
cases pending in Missouri.2 According to the documents she submits, plaintiff owns
real estate and pays property taxes in Detroit. She also receives a pension from the
Michigan Office of Retirement Services. Defendants counter with documents
establishing that plaintiff owns the home in St. Louis where she alleges her injuries
occurred, holds a Missouri driver’s license, is registered to vote in Missouri, and
voted in the City of St. Louis in August 2016.

2

On November 15, 2010, plaintiff brought suit in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County
against Allstate Indemnity Company for breach of insurance contract and vexatious refusal
to pay for water damage at her home at 1815 Cambridge Lane, MO 63147. The defendant
removed the action to this Court pursuant to diversity jurisdiction. Tansil v. Allstate
Indemnity Company, 4:12-CV-226 (DDN) (E.D. Mo. Jan. 15, 2012). That case was
terminated on October 23, 2014.

3

Although plaintiff’s documents establish that her connections to Michigan are
of some substance, she cannot rely on them to contradict her allegations in the
original complaint and the amended complaints that she is a citizen of Missouri. By
presenting pleadings and other documents to the Court, plaintiff has certified that
the factual allegations, including those regarding her state of citizenship, have
evidentiary support. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3). In addition, plaintiff affixed to her
complaints verifications in which she stated, under penalty of perjury, that the
contents of the complaints were true. Plaintiff’s contradictory assertion of Michigan
citizenship in response to the motion to dismiss cannot satisfy her burden to
establish subject matter jurisdiction.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion of defendant Honda Motor
Company, Ltd., to dismiss [Doc. #13] is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion of defendant D.R.K. Investment
Co. d/b/a Mungenast St. Louis Acura, to dismiss [Doc. #24] is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other pending motions are denied as
moot.
A separate order of dismissal will be entered.

CAROL E. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 28th day of October, 2016.

4