Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01846/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01846-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-1846

___________

John Harper, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Marshall Ford Sales, Inc., *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: February 17, 2010

Filed: February 25, 2010

___________

Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Oregon resident John Harper filed a complaint based on diversity jurisdiction

against Marshall Ford Sales, Inc., a Missouri corporation. The district court dismissed

the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). Harper appeals. We

reverse and remand for further proceedings.

District courts have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the amount

in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, and where the action is between

citizens of different states. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). We review de novo a

dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Advance Am. Servicing of Ark.,

Inc. v. McGinnis, 526 F.3d 1170, 1173 (8th Cir. 2008). 

Appellate Case: 09-1846 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/25/2010 Entry ID: 3638208
-2-

In his fee-paid, pro se complaint Harper alleged his state of residency, but not

his state of citizenship; and he requested $3,026.81 in actual damages and $150,000

in punitive damages, but he did not allege facts to support his claim for punitive

damages under Missouri law. See Larkin v. Brown, 41 F.3d 387, 388-89 (8th Cir.

1994) (Missouri requires showing of culpable mental state); Allison v. Sec. Benefit

Life Ins. Co., 980 F.2d 1213, 1215-16 (8th Cir. 1992) (elements of fraud must be pled

with particularity). The district court, on its own motion and before service of

process, dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

On appeal, Harper asserts that the district court should not have dismissed his

complaint without providing him notice or an opportunity to amend. We agree. We

express no opinion on whether Harper will be able to cure the jurisdictional defects,

but we cannot say at this point in the litigation that it appears to a legal certainty that

he cannot recover more than $75,000, or that complete diversity of citizenship is

lacking. See Gonzalez-Gonzalez v. United States, 257 F.3d 31, 36-37 (1st Cir. 2001)

(sua sponte dismissal without notice or opportunity to be heard “is disfavored in

federal practice,” and will rarely be upheld: “If it is crystal clear that the plaintiff

cannot prevail and that amending the complaint would be futile, then a sua sponte

dismissal may stand.”); Joyce v. Joyce, 975 F.2d 379, 386 (7th Cir. 1992) (unless

jurisdictional defect is clearly incurable, district court should allow plaintiff leave to

amend, allow parties to argue jurisdictional issue, or provide plaintiff with opportunity

to discover facts necessary to establish jurisdiction). 

Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s dismissal order and remand for

further proceedings.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-1846 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/25/2010 Entry ID: 3638208