Vianello v. Prairie Village, Kansas, City of

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

MARC VIANELLO,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:25-CV-02383-JAR-TJJ

CITY OF PRAIRIE VILLAGE, KANSAS,

Defendant.

ORDER Plaintiff Marc Vianello filed this action on July 16, 2025, against Defendant the City of Prairie Village, Kansas, challenging Defendant’s issuance of general obligation bonds associated with building a new City Hall.1 On July 25, 2025, Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.2 On August 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed his response to Defendant’s July 25, 2025 motion; Defendant’s reply is due within fourteen (14) days of Plaintiff’s response.3 However, the Court is concerned that the briefing already filed by both parties insufficiently address whether the Plaintiff has standing to assert his federal claims before this Court. Accordingly, the Court directs the parties to submit briefing that addresses whether the Plaintiff has met the constitutional requirements for federal standing.4 The Court will extend the page limitation for Defendant’s forthcoming reply to allow it to adequately address this issue.

1 Doc 1. 2 Doc. 4. 3 Doc. 14; D. Kan. Rule 6.1(d)(1). 4 A court lacking jurisdiction must dismiss the case, regardless of the stage of the proceeding, when it becomes apparent that jurisdiction is lacking. See Laughlin v. Kmart Corp., 50 F.3d 871, 873 (10th Cir. 1995)). A court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims without first establishing federal question or diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. And the Court will permit Plaintiff leave to file a sur-reply to address the federal standing issue only. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Defendant’s reply brief shall address the issue of federal standing; it shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages. Plaintiff may file a sur-reply fourteen (14) days later, which shall not exceed ten (10) pages.5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 22, 2025 S/ Julie A. Robinson JULIE A. ROBINSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5 Plaintiff’s brief in opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss is out of compliance with at least one local rule. See Kan. Rule 5.1(a) (“Pleadings, motions, briefs, and other papers submitted for filing must be . . . double- spaced, in no less than 12-point font.”). Plaintiff is encouraged to review the local rules and comply with them in future filings.