Romero Lujan v. Guymon City of

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

LIZETH I. ROMERO LUJAN; and ) JUAN P. HERRERA DELGADILLO, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Case No. CIV-24-1127-D v. ) ) THE CITY OF GUYMON, ) ) Defendant. )

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-in- controversy 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 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. Jd. 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.’” /mage 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 5" day of March, 2025.

\" \ Q: □□ TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI Chief United States District Judge