Smith v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company

W.D. Oklahoma

Smith v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company

DecidedJanuary 8, 2025

Docket5:24-cv-01164

StatusUnknown

This text of Smith v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company (Smith v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company, (W.D. Okla. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

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

ARNOLD SMITH, and ) MELINDA SMITH, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) Case No. CIV-24-1164-SLP ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND ) PROPERTY INSURANCE ) COMPANY, ) ) Defendant. ) O R D E R Upon review of the Complaint [Doc. No. 1], the Court finds Plaintiffs have failed to articulate any basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction.1 Federal courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction, and a basis of federal jurisdiction must be affirmatively pleaded. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). The Complaint [Doc. No. 1] is devoid of any discussion whatsoever regarding the existence of federal subject matter jurisdiction. To the extent subject matter jurisdiction is premised on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. 1332, Plaintiffs fail to allege their state of citizenship, i.e., domicile. See Siloam Springs Hotel, L.L.C. v. Century Sur. Co., 781 F.3d 1233, 1238 (10th Cir. 2015) (“An individual’s residence is not equivalent to his domicile[,] and it is domicile that is relevant for determining citizenship.”). Therefore, Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden, as the

1 “[F]ederal courts unquestionably ‘have an independent obligation to determine whether subject- matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party.’” Havens v. Colo. Dep’t of Corr., 897 F.3d 1250, 1260 (10th Cir. 2018) (quoting Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006)). parties invoking federal jurisdiction, to establish the existence of complete diversity of citizenship between the parties. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint to sufficiently allege the existence of federal subject matter jurisdiction within 14 days of the date of this Order. Failure to timely comply with this Order may result in dismissal of this action without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED this 8 day of January, 2025. ) tz bbb SCOTT L. PALK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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

ARNOLD SMITH, and ) MELINDA SMITH, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) Case No. CIV-24-1164-SLP ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND ) PROPERTY INSURANCE ) COMPANY, ) ) Defendant. ) O R D E R Upon review of the Complaint [Doc. No. 1], the Court finds Plaintiffs have failed to articulate any basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction.1 Federal courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction, and a basis of federal jurisdiction must be affirmatively pleaded. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). The Complaint [Doc. No. 1] is devoid of any discussion whatsoever regarding the existence of federal subject matter jurisdiction. To the extent subject matter jurisdiction is premised on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. 1332, Plaintiffs fail to allege their state of citizenship, i.e., domicile. See Siloam Springs Hotel, L.L.C. v. Century Sur. Co., 781 F.3d 1233, 1238 (10th Cir. 2015) (“An individual’s residence is not equivalent to his domicile[,] and it is domicile that is relevant for determining citizenship.”). Therefore, Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden, as the

1 “[F]ederal courts unquestionably ‘have an independent obligation to determine whether subject- matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party.’” Havens v. Colo. Dep’t of Corr., 897 F.3d 1250, 1260 (10th Cir. 2018) (quoting Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006)). parties invoking federal jurisdiction, to establish the existence of complete diversity of citizenship between the parties. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint to sufficiently allege the existence of federal subject matter jurisdiction within 14 days of the date of this Order. Failure to timely comply with this Order may result in dismissal of this action without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED this 8 day of January, 2025. ) tz bbb SCOTT L. PALK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Smith v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-allstate-vehicle-and-property-insurance-company-okwd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack