Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01037/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01037-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

Carina Boon, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CIV 04-1037 PHX RCB

)

vs. ) O R D E R

)

Kenneth S. Countryman, P.C., )

)

Defendant. ) )

On May 21, 2004, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Kenneth

S. Countryman, P.C., claiming damages due to legal malpractice.

Comp. (doc. 1). Plaintiff did not serve Defendant with the

complaint and summons until March 11, 2005. (doc. 13). Thereafter,

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss this case with prejudice.

Motion to Dismiss (doc. 14). On March 31, 2005, Plaintiff filed a

motion requesting that this matter be set for trial. Motion for

Trial (doc. 15). Neither party filed a response to the opposing

party's motion. 

In his motion to dismiss, Defendant moves the Court to dismiss

this action with prejudice. Motion to Dismiss (doc. 14) at 1. Two 

Case 2:04-cv-01037-RCB Document 16 Filed 10/05/05 Page 1 of 2
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 -

of the grounds asserted by Defendant in support of dismissal are

(1) that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the person of Defendant;

and (2) that there is no diversity among the parties to the action.

Id. However, Defendant raises no arguments in support of his

request that the case be dismissed with prejudice. Motion to

Dismiss (doc. 14). 

Upon review of Plaintiff's complaint, the Court notes that

Boon does not assert any federal claims. (doc. 1). In her

complaint, she only indicates an intention to pursue legal

malpractice claims. Id. Moreover, Plaintiff's complaint does not

establish diversity among the parties or that the amount in

controversy meets the required minimum to qualify for diversity

jurisdiction. Thus, the Court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction

over this matter. However, the Court is not convinced that the

matter should be dismissed with prejudice.

Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's motion to dismiss (doc. 14) is

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. This case is dismissed without

prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to set this

matter for trial (doc. 15) is DENIED as moot.

DATED this 4th day of October, 2005.

Copies to counsel of record

Case 2:04-cv-01037-RCB Document 16 Filed 10/05/05 Page 2 of 2