Jensen v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.

• Decision Date: 06 December 2021
• Docket Number: 3:20-cv-01486-IM
• Parties: TROY B. JENSEN, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Oregon

TROY B. JENSEN, Plaintiff,
v.
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, Defendant.

No. 3:20-cv-01486-IM

United States District Court, D. Oregon

December 6, 2021

Willard E. Merkel, Merkel & Associates, Attorney for Plaintiff.

David P. Rossmiller; Elissa M. Boyd; Ryan Tarter, Chartwell Law, Attorney for Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

Karin J. Immergut, United States District Judge.

This matter comes before this Court on Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. ECF 42. For the reasons set forth below, this Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and dismisses this case without prejudice.

STANDARDS

A plaintiff has the burden of proving that subject-matter jurisdiction does in fact exist.

1

Thornhill Publ'g Co., Inc. v. Gen. Tel. & Elecs. Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1979). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) requires that a case must be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction when the Court lacks a constitutional or statutory basis to adjudicate the controversy. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1); Leeson v. Transamerica Disability Income Plan, 671 F.3d 969, 975 (9th Cir. 2012). When deciding a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), the court may consider affidavits and other evidence supporting or attacking the plaintiff's jurisdictional allegations. Autery v. United States, 424 F.3d 944, 956 (9th Cir. 2005). The court may permit discovery to determine whether it has jurisdiction. Data Disc, Inc. v. Sys. Tech. Assocs., Inc., 557 F.2d 1280, 1285 (9th Cir. 1977). The court has broad discretion in granting discovery and may narrowly define the limits of such discovery. Id. When the court “receives only written submissions, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction.” Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int'l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1019 (9th Cir. 2002).

BACKGROUND

According to Plaintiff Troy B. Jensen's Complaint in this matter, on or about August 20, 2018, Plaintiff recklessly, but unintentionally, caused a fire at his apartment. ECF 1-2 at 3. The fire destroyed Plaintiff's personal property and caused damage to the apartment complex, including a coffee shop located on the ground floor of the building. Id. Plaintiff claims that as a result of the fire, liability claims were asserted by Wyatt Apartments in the sum of $98, 871.61, and by Joyfield Corporation, in the sum of $741, 711.22.^[1] Id. Plaintiff then sought recovery from his insurer, Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company. Id. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant breached the terms of the policy when it failed to pay $865, 582.83 to settle the claims. Id. The Complaint does not allege Wyatt Apartments and Joyfield Corporation-or their

2

insurers, Allianz Insurance Company and Farmers Insurance Company-have brought a civil action against Plaintiff. Nor does he allege that any judgment has been entered against him or that he has paid any amount in regard to the damages at issue.

DISCUSSION

Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint on the ground that Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to establish a ripe case or controversy. ECF 42 at 4. Specifically, Defendant argues that Plaintiff's breach of contract claim is not yet ripe because there has been no binding determination by a court that Plaintiff is liable to the subrogation insurers for the August 20, 2018 incident.^[2] This Court finds that it cannot exercise subject-matter jurisdiction in this case and dismisses Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice.

Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, limits this Court's subject-matter jurisdiction to deciding “cases” or “controversies.” See, e.g., Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 750 (1984). No case or controversy exists if a case is not yet ripe for adjudication. See, e.g., Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rts. Comm'n, 220 F.3d 1134, 1139 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). As a result, a federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction when a claim is not ripe. See St. Clair v. City of Chico, 880 F.2d 199, 201 (9th Cir. 1989) (“Whether a claim is ripe for adjudication goes to a court's subject matter jurisdiction under the case or controversy clause of article III of the federal Constitution.”). Unripe claims may be dismissed sua sponte. S. Pac. Transp. Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 922 F.2d 498, 502 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Ripeness is more than a mere procedural question;

3

it is determinative of jurisdiction.”). Before the merits of this case can even be considered, it is incumbent on this Court to first determine whether this claim is ripe for adjudication. Addington v. U.S. Airline Pilots Ass'n, 606 F.3d...