Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08170/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08170-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Robert Hanna, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Olivia O. Hans; Warnock, MacKinlay &

Carman, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 10-CV-8170-PCT-GMS

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Defendant Warnock, MacKinlay & Carman’s

(“Warnock”) Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 3) and Defendant Olivia O. Hans’ Motion to Dismiss

(Doc. 8). For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants both Defendants’ motions.

BACKGROUND

This case arises from a criminal case in which Plaintiff Robert Hanna physically

assaulted Defendant Olivia O. Hans, and a civil case in which Defendant Warnock

represented Hans in her claim against Plaintiff’s mother’s homeowner’s insurance company.

(Doc. 1, 3). Plaintiff generally asserts that Defendant Hans lied to police investigators

leading to his arrest and subsequent jail term, and unduly benefitted from an insurance

settlement. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff seeks relief in the amount of $675,000 from Defendant Hans,

the alleged amount of Hans’ insurance settlement, and $2.5 million from Defendant Warnock

for wrongfully pursuing a case against him and for “[taking] away [his] legal rights” by

Case 3:10-cv-08170-GMS Document 11 Filed 02/10/11 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Plaintiff, a citizen of Prescott Valley, Arizona, asserts his belief that the existence of

Defendant Warnock’s law office in Phoenix confers jurisdiction upon this Court. (Doc. 10).

- 2 -

talking him into signing a “Damron Agreement” which transferred to Hans his right to pursue

litigation against his mother’s homeowner’s insurance company. (Doc. 1, 10). 

Plaintiff filed suit in the District Court of Arizona on September 9, 2010. (Doc. 1).

Defendants Warnock and Hans each filed separate Motions to Dismiss, arguing that the

Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim

upon which relief can be granted. (Doc. 3, 8).

DISCUSSION

“The party asserting jurisdiction has the burden of proving all jurisdictional facts.”

Indus. Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing McNutt v.

Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936)). In effect, the Court presumes

lack of jurisdiction until Plaintiff proves otherwise. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.

of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Stock W., Inc. v. Confederated Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221,

1225 (9th Cir. 1989). The defense of lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any

time by the parties or the court. See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3). A Rule 12(b)(1) motion to

dismiss “for lack of subject matter jurisdiction may either attack the allegations of the

complaint or may be made as a ‘speaking motion’ attacking the existence of subject matter

jurisdiction in fact.” Thornhill Publ’g Co. v. Gen. Tel. & Elecs. Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 733

(9th Cir. 1979).

District courts have original jurisdiction of all civil actions between “citizens of

different States” where the $75,000 amount in controversy requirement is met. 28 U.S.C. §

1332(a) (2005). For diversity jurisdiction to exist, there must be “complete diversity” of

citizenship between the two sides of the litigation. Grubbs v. Gen. Elec. Credit Corp., 405

U.S. 699, 704 (1972). Here, Plaintiff asserts jurisdiction in this Court on the assumed basis

of diversity of citizenship, as he indicates no federal question at issue. (Doc. 1).1

 Plaintiff

Case 3:10-cv-08170-GMS Document 11 Filed 02/10/11 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

Plaintiff does not dispute that both Defendants are citizens of Arizona.

- 3 -

does so on the mistaken belief that diversity exists between citizens of Arizona2 who happen

to reside in different regions of that State. (Doc. 6). Because Plaintiff has not proven that

jurisdiction exists in this Court, both Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss must be granted.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

1. Defendant Warnock, MacKinlay & Carman’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 3) is

GRANTED.

2. Defendant Olivia O. Hans’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8) is GRANTED.

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to TERMINATE this action.

DATED this 10th day of February, 2011.

Case 3:10-cv-08170-GMS Document 11 Filed 02/10/11 Page 3 of 3