UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ AKOSUA AAEBO, as managing partner of Quindaro Company, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. UNIFIED GOVERNMENT OF WYANDOTTE COUNTY, KANSAS CITY, KANSAS, Defendant - Appellee. No. 21-3136 (D.C. No. 2:20-CV -02296-EFM-JPO) (D. Kan.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before MATHESON , KELLY , and CARSON , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Plaintiff Quindaro Company sued th e Unified Government of Wyandotte County, Kansas City, Kansas (Wyandotte County) under various fraud theories. The district court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdic tion based on diversity because the parties were both Kansas entities, a nd dismissed the case. Akosua Aaebo, a

* After examining the briefs and appella te record, this pa nel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not ma terially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cite d, however, for its persuasi ve value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### October 7, 2022 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court Appellate Case: 21-3136 Document: 010110750369 Date Filed: 10/07/2022 Page: 12 non-lawyer and managing partne r of Quindaro, filed an app eal on behalf of Quindaro. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. I. Background Quindaro filed an amended compla int against Wyandotte County alleging numerous fraud theories and seeking $7 b illion in monetary damages and $70 billion in punitive damages. 1 The factual basis for the clai ms involved Wyan dotte County’s annexation of certain property. Quinda ro alleged that Wy andotte County was negligent in the recording of deeds for the property, resulting in fraudulent annexation and continued fraudulent acts relating to the property. Wyandotte County filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The district court granted the motion, holding: (1) it did not have federal question jurisdiction because the st atutes under which Quindaro pursued its claims do not provide for a private right of action; and (2) it lack ed federal diversity jurisdiction because both parties were from Ka nsas. The district court further noted that if it had not dismissed the case for la ck of jurisdiction, it would have struck the amended complaint because a business entity like Quindaro cannot be represented by a non-attorney corporate officer like Ms. Aaebo.

1 The amended complaint identified the pl aintiff in this cas e as “Akosua Aaebo as Managing Partner of Quindaro Company. ” The district court concluded that Quindaro is the actual plaint iff based on the allegation that Quindaro sustained harm as the result of Wyandotte’s allegedly fraudulent actions. Business entities may be represented in court only through licensed counsel. See Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council , 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993). To the extent Quindaro is the appellant in this case, Ms. Aaebo cannot represent it. Appellate Case: 21-3136 Document: 010110750369 Date Filed: 10/07/2022 Page: 23 Quindaro has appealed only the district court’s holding on the lack of diversity of citizenship.
II. Discussion District courts have diversity jurisd iction over any civil action in which the claimed damages exceed $75,000 and the matte r in controversy is between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Here, the district court acknowledged the claimed damages exceeded $75,000, but c oncluded Wyandotte County and Quindaro were both citizens of Kansas. The district court therefore held that it did not have diversity jurisdiction. We agree with the district court’s holding. “We review the district court’s order dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo.” Lindstrom v. United States , 510 F.3d 1191, 1193 (10th Cir. 2007). The distri ct court noted that Quindaro ’s amended complaint alleged it is a business entity registered with the Kansas Secretary of State. The district court further noted that a record of that registra tion reflects that Quin daro is a partnership whose partners reside in Kansas. See R. at 48-49. Ms. Aaebo, on behalf of Quindaro, argues the partners of Quindaro are no longer residents of Kansas. But “the relevant time period for determining th e existence of complete diversity is the time of the filing of the complaint.” Siloam Springs Hotel, L.L.C. v. Century Sur.
Co. , 781 F.3d 1233, 1239 (10th Cir. 2015); see also Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Glob. Grp. , 541 U.S. 567, 569-70 (2004) (“[F]or purposes of de termining the existence of diversity jurisdiction, the citi zenship of the parties is to be determined with reference to the facts as they existed at the time of filing.”). Appellate Case: 21-3136 Document: 010110750369 Date Filed: 10/07/2022 Page: 34 Ms. Aaebo also argues in the reply brief that because she is homeless, she is legally entitled under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(3) to continue proceedings in the District of Kansas. 2 Section 1391, however, concerns venue, not jurisd iction. “[V]enue and subject-matter jurisdiction are not concepts of the same order.” Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt , 546 U.S. 303, 316 (2006). “Venue is largely a ma tter of litigational convenience,” while “[s]ubject matter jurisdiction . . . con cerns a court’s competence to adjudicate a particular category of cases.” Id. “This basic difference between the court’s power and the litigant’s convenience is historic in the federal courts.” Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. , 308 U.S. 165, 168 (1939). We therefore reject this argument.
III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the district court dismissing this case for lack of diversity jurisdiction. Ms. Aaebo has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. To the extent Quindaro is the appellant in this case, it cannot proceed in forma pauperis on

2 Unlike the opening brief, Ms. Aaebo wrot e the reply brief in such a way as to suggest that she is the appellant in this case, not Quindaro. In either case, diversity is lacking because the Quindaro registration mentioned above reflec ts that Ms. Aaebo was a Kansas resident at the time of filing. Appellate Case: 21-3136 Document: 010110750369 Date Filed: 10/07/2022 Page: 45 appeal. See Rowland , 506 U.S. at 196, 201-02. To the extent Ms. Aaebo filed the motion on her own behalf, it is denied.

Entered for the Court

Joel M. Carson III Circuit Judge Appellate Case: 21-3136 Document: 010110750369 Date Filed: 10/07/2022 Page: 5