STEPHEN R. BOUGH, District Judge.
Before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint With Prejudice (Doc. #34). For the reasons discussed below, Defendant's motion is DENIED.
On July 7, 2015, Plaintiff filed his complaint against Defendants Equity Group, Sean Endecott and Terry Moyer, claiming "[a]buse, neglect and making a false claim." (Doc. 5, p.1). Plaintiff alleges he rented a studio apartment in Kansas City, Missouri, which was sold to Defendant Equity Group and claims "[p]erjury and [f]raud is suspected amongst other illegal activity." (Doc. #5, p.3). Plaintiff complains he suffered respiratory difficulties due to a carbon dioxide issue in the apartment. Since the filing of this action, Plaintiff has filed eight different documents as "amendments" to his complaint.
On September 10, 2015, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint with Prejudice. Defendants assert Plaintiff failed to satisfy the pleading standards required by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10(b), and the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action based on lack of diversity. Plaintiff filed his response in opposition on October 13, 2015.
Defendants argue this action should be dismissed for (1) failure to adhere to the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and 10(b); and (2) lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The Court addresses each of these arguments in turn.
Defendants assert Plaintiff's claim must be dismissed for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and 10(b). Defendants claim Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to support a claim for relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Defendant explains Plaintiff must "do more than place a map and suggest that he may be able to travel to some point thereon." (Doc. #35, p. 5). Defendants also argue that the complaint is not clear because Plaintiff makes "countless potential claims against the Defendants without clearly or simply stating his allegations in numbered paragraphs as required in Rule 10(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." (Doc. #35, p.3). In his response, Plaintiff states that he has sufficiently provided Defendants with fair notice and claims the remaining details can be provided in discovery.
In order to maintain this action, Plaintiff's complaint must meet the standards set out in Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). First, Rule 8(a) requires a plaintiff plead sufficient facts to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. "[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to `state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'"
Second, Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b) requires the party to "state its claims . . . in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances." Rule 10(b) suggests, "If doing so would promote clarity, each claim founded on a separate transaction or occurrence—and each defense other than a denial—must be stated in a separate count or defense." The Court notes that a pro se complaint must be liberally construed and "however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."
Here, Plaintiff has filed a complaint and more than eight supplements to the complaint. Plaintiff states he is asserting claims of abuse, neglect and making false claims, but the allegations do not demonstrate to the Court "that [plaintiff] is entitled to relief" pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The initial complaint contains a four page narrative claiming "perjury and fraud [are] suspected," but fails to allege sufficient facts to state a claim for these causes of action. (Doc. #5, p.3). Plaintiff asserts claims against three defendants, but it is not clear what Plaintiff's allegations are against each individual defendant. While pro se complaints must be construed liberally and additional details may be exposed later after the completion of discovery, the Complaint "must still allege sufficient facts to support the claims advanced."
Although Plaintiff's response fails to comply with the requirements set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and 10(b), the Court acknowledges Plaintiff's pro se status. As previously explained to Plaintiff by the Court, Plaintiff is directed to file an amended complaint complying with the rules set forth above and as follows:
Therefore, Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint is denied. Plaintiff is directed to file an amended complaint that satisfies the requirements set forth above. Once Plaintiff has had an opportunity to file an amended complaint, Defendants are free to renew their motion to dismiss this action, if appropriate.
Defendants assert that this action must be dismissed because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims due to the lack of diversity between the parties. Defendants note that Plaintiff resides in Kansas City, Missouri, and Defendant Equity Group, LLC is a Fictitious Name and owned by Realty Services, LLC, a Missouri Limited Liability Company, located in Lee's Summit, Missouri. According to Plaintiff, Equity Group is a company doing business out of Olathe, Kansas, and both individual defendants reside in Kansas.
"The burden of proving subject matter jurisdiction falls on the plaintiff."
Plaintiff provided a letter from Defendant Equity Group indicating all rent payments shall be sent to their new address at PO Box 2242, Olathe, Kansas, and a business card from Defendant Sean Endecott, who signed the letter, and Defendant Terry Moyer listing phone numbers with a 913 area code. (Doc. #49, p.14-5). In their motion, Defendants state Defendant Equity Group is a Fictitious Name and the company is owned by a Missouri LLC. But, Defendants have not provided information regarding the citizenship of its members through affidavits or other documentation to factually challenge the jurisdictional issue.
Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has met his burden of proving that the citizenship of the parties is diverse. The Court determines that, at this time, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case. However, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3), "[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court must dismiss this action." "[T]his court is obligated to raise such jurisdictional issues if it perceives any."
Accordingly, in light of Plaintiff's pro se status, it is hereby