Hanson v. Health Insurance Innovators and Beech Street Corporation
4:10-cv-00709
D. Ariz.Sep 28, 2011Background
- Hanson, a pro se plaintiff, sues Health Insurance Innovators and Starr Indemnity & Liability in the District of Arizona for breach of contract and bad faith, alleging state-law claims.
- Plaintiff's complaint asserts damages in excess of $75,000 in the federal case, while her state-court complaint alleges $50,000 or less.
- Defendants move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing insufficient amount in controversy and lack of federal-question or complete diversity.
- Court previously noted possible lack of diversity and questioned whether the amount-in-controversy requirement was satisfied.
- Plaintiff did not respond to the motion to dismiss, and the court reviews jurisdictional allegations and evidence for subject-matter jurisdiction.
- Court grants the motion, dismisses without prejudice, and closes the case; summary disposition motion is denied as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether subject matter jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. 1332. | Hanson asserts damages support federal jurisdiction. | Diversity exists but damages fall short of $75,000. | Lack of jurisdiction; dismissed without prejudice. |
| Whether the amount in controversy satisfies the $75,000 threshold. | Damages exceed $75,000 as alleged in the federal complaint. | Damages in state court are $50,000 or less; not enough for federal jurisdiction. | Insufficient amount in controversy; no federal jurisdiction. |
| Whether the court should consider evidence beyond the complaint for jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Land v. Dollar, 330 U.S. 731 (1947) (review of jurisdictional facts may include affidavits and evidence)
- Thornhill Publ’g Co., Inc. v. General Tel. & Elec. Corp., 594 F.2d 730 (9th Cir. 1979) (burden of proof on jurisdictional facts)
- St. Clair v. City of Chico, 880 F.2d 199 (9th Cir. 1989) (court may consider evidence beyond pleadings to establish jurisdiction)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standards; grounds for entitlement to relief)
- St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283 (1938) (legal certainty required to establish jurisdiction; dismissal if not met)