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 the Unified Government of Wyandotte 

County, Kansas City, Kansas (Wyandotte County) under various fraud theories. The 

district court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction based on diversity because 

the parties were both Kansas entities, and dismissed the case. Akosua Aaebo, a 

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially 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 doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive 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: 1
2 

non-lawyer and managing partner of Quindaro, filed an appeal on behalf of Quindaro. 

Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. 

I. Background 

 Quindaro filed an amended complaint against Wyandotte County alleging 

numerous fraud theories and seeking $7 billion in monetary damages and $70 billion 

in punitive damages.1

 The factual basis for the claims involved Wyandotte County’s 

annexation of certain property. Quindaro alleged that Wyandotte 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 statutes under which Quindaro pursued its 

claims do not provide for a private right of action; and (2) it lacked federal diversity 

jurisdiction because both parties were from Kansas. The district court further noted 

that if it had not dismissed the case for lack 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 plaintiff in this case as “Akosua Aaebo 

as Managing Partner of Quindaro Company.” The district court concluded that 

Quindaro is the actual plaintiff 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: 2
3 

Quindaro has appealed only the district court’s holding on the lack of diversity 

of citizenship. 

II. Discussion 

 District courts have diversity jurisdiction over any civil action in which the 

claimed damages exceed $75,000 and the matter 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 concluded 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 district 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 registration reflects that Quindaro 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 the 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 determining the existence of 

diversity jurisdiction, the citizenship 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: 3
4 

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 jurisdiction. “[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 matter of litigational 

convenience,” while “[s]ubject matter jurisdiction . . . concerns 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 wrote 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 reflects that Ms. Aaebo 

was a Kansas resident at the time of filing. 

Appellate Case: 21-3136 Document: 010110750369 Date Filed: 10/07/2022 Page: 4
5 

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