Kensinger v. CT Corporation System Spring Hill Apartments LLC

Filing 17

ORDER finding as moot 6 motion ; granting 8 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; finding as moot 16 motion for extension of time. Clerk's office ordered to mail copy of this order to pro se plaintiff at address of record. Signed District Judge M. Douglas Harpool February 6, 2024. (Clark, Christopher)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
KRISTINE LOUISE KENSINGER,
Plaintiff,
v.
CT CORPORATION SYSTEM
SPRING HILLS APARTMENTS LLC
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 6:23-cv-03325-MDH

ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). “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. Titus v. Sullivan, 4
F.3d 590, 593 (8th Cir. 1993) (internal citations omitted). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(1)
requires that pleadings include “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's
jurisdiction.”
Plaintiff’s pro se complaint generally alleges that she suffered physical and financial
damages as a result of a black mold infestation in her residence in an apartment complex in
Republic, Missouri. Though unclear from Plaintiff’s complaint, it appears Plaintiff may have
received subsidies from the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Choice Voucher
Program. Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s allegations fail to establish subject matter jurisdiction.
This Court agrees.
Plaintiff’s pro se complaint claims her allegations arise under federal law, but Plaintiff cites
no federal law. Instead, Plaintiff’s Exhibit One references RSMO § 441.234, a subsection of

Missouri statute that establishes when tenants must deduct the cost of repair from rent payments.
Plaintiff’s complaint appears to establish both Plaintiff and Defendant are Missouri residents, as
Plaintiff repeatedly lists a Clayton, Missouri address for Defendant, who Plaintiff appears to
believe is the owner of her apartment complex in Republic, Missouri. This in turn indicates lack
of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Further, Plaintiff cites no authority, nor is this Court aware
of any, that would grant this Court jurisdiction over this suit due to Plaintiff’s possible participation
in any HUD voucher program.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s pro se complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice at this time.
This Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff’s situation, but the allegations in Plaintiff’s pro se complaint
do not grant this Court necessary subject matter jurisdiction. Further, Plaintiff’s pending Motion
for Extension of Time for the Rule 26 Conference and pending Motion RE Possible Fraudulent
Activity are hereby MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 6, 2024

/s/ Douglas Harpool______
DOUGLAS HARPOOL
United States District Judge