Airliner L.L.C. v. Acceptance Casualty Insurance Company, 19-1117-JWB. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Kansas
Number: infdco20190625c44
Visitors: 5
Filed: Jun. 24, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 24, 2019
Summary: ORDER JAMES P. O'HARA , Magistrate Judge . On June 7, 2019, the court entered an order to show cause, instructing the parties to file a joint status report, with affidavits attached, demonstrating the citizenship of each of the defendants and showing cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (ECF No. 8). On June 21, 2019, the parties filed their joint response to the order to show cause (ECF No. 14). As demonstrated by the response and attached affidavits, the pa
Summary: ORDER JAMES P. O'HARA , Magistrate Judge . On June 7, 2019, the court entered an order to show cause, instructing the parties to file a joint status report, with affidavits attached, demonstrating the citizenship of each of the defendants and showing cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (ECF No. 8). On June 21, 2019, the parties filed their joint response to the order to show cause (ECF No. 14). As demonstrated by the response and attached affidavits, the par..
More
ORDER
JAMES P. O'HARA, Magistrate Judge.
On June 7, 2019, the court entered an order to show cause, instructing the parties to file a joint status report, with affidavits attached, demonstrating the citizenship of each of the defendants and showing cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (ECF No. 8). On June 21, 2019, the parties filed their joint response to the order to show cause (ECF No. 14). As demonstrated by the response and attached affidavits, the parties have clarified the facts relevant to determining subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff Airliner L.L.C. has one member, who is a resident of Kansas. Plaintiff Four S, Inc.'s principal place of business is in Kansas. Defendant's principal place of business is in North Carolina. The court finds that it has subject matter jurisdiction over this case based on these assertions. Accordingly, the court finds that the parties have satisfied their burden of showing why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
