Romero Lujan et al v. Guymon City of

Filing 6

ORDER granting 4 Motion to Dismiss without prejudice to refiling as set forth herein. A separate judgment shall be issued accordingly. Signed by Chief Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti on 3/5/2025. (jee)

Case 5:24-cv-01127-D

Document 6

Filed 03/05/25

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
LIZETH I. ROMERO LUJAN; and
JUAN P. HERRERA DELGADILLO,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
v.
THE CITY OF GUYMON,
Defendant.

Case No. CIV-24-1127-D

ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint [Doc. No.
4]. In its Motion, Defendant argues that, because 28 U.S.C. § 1332’s amount-incontroversy requirement cannot possibly be met in this case, the Court lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction. More specifically, Plaintiffs assert a negligence claim against Defendant under
the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act (“OGTCA”), but the OGTCA caps Plaintiffs’
potential recovery at $25,000. See Def.’s Mot. at 6-7; see also Okla. Stat. tit. 51, §
154(A)(1) (“ The total liability of the state and its political subdivisions on claims within
the scope of The Governmental Tort Claims Act . . . shall not exceed: [] Twenty-five
Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) for any claim or to any claimant who has more than one
claim for loss of property arising out of a single act, accident, or occurrence[.]”). Therefore,
Defendant argues, it is a legal certainty that “the controversy is worth less than the
jurisdictional minimum.” See McPhail v. Deere & Co., 529 F.3d 947, 954 (10th Cir. 2008).
On February 20, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their Response to Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint [Doc. No. 5], in which they “confess the relief requested in

Case 5:24-cv-01127-D

Document 6

Filed 03/05/25

Page 2 of 2

the Motion insofar as this Court does not have diversity subject matter jurisdiction.”
Plaintiffs thus concede that the Court should dismiss this case without prejudice for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction. Id.
Separate and apart from the instant Motion, “[f]ederal courts ‘have an independent
obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a
challenge from any party.’” 1mage Software, Inc. v. Reynolds & Reynolds Co., 459 F.3d
1044, 1048 (10th Cir. 2006) (quoting Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006));
see also Havens v. Colo. Dep’t of Corr., 897 F.3d 1250, 1260 (10th Cir. 2018). Upon review
of the Complaint and Defendant’s Motion, the Court agrees that it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction over this case and that Defendant’s Motion [Doc. No. 4] should be, and hereby
is, GRANTED.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without
prejudice to refiling. A separate judgment shall be issued accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 5th day of March, 2025.

TIMOTHY . DeGIUSTI
Chief United States District Judge

2