United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
JOHN W. DARRAH, District Judge.
Plaintiff, Soma Getty Priddle ("Priddle"), filed two Amended Complaints: the first, against Defendant Darwin Asset Management ("Darwin"), alleging one count of premises liability; the second, against Dean Malanis ("Malanis") and Great Lakes Service II, Inc. ("Great Lakes"), alleging one count each of "Violation of Illinois Tow Law" and replevin. Malanis and Great Lakes have filed a Motion to Dismiss, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which Darwin has joined. The Motion has been fully briefed. For the following reasons, Defendants' Motion is granted.
Priddle is an airline pilot who resides in Norwalk, Wisconsin. (Am. Compl. Malanis ¶¶ 1, 11.) On the morning of July 24, 2010, Priddle was driving to O'Hare International Airport, amid heavy rains, when police redirected her onto Thomas Drive in Bensenville, Illinois. (Am. Compl. Malanis ¶¶ 12-16.) At a point between 705 and 715 Thomas Drive, police erected barricades and were instructing drivers to turn their vehicles around in an adjacent parking lot owned by Darwin. (Am. Compl. Malanis ¶¶ 18-20.)
While attempting to turn around, a surge of water came through the lot. (Am. Compl. Malanis ¶ 22.) Because Darwin's lot was missing protective barriers, the flood swept Priddle's vehicle, with her inside, off of the lot and into an adjacent drainage ditch. (Am. Compl. Darwin ¶¶ 21, 23.) Priddle was able to escape from her vehicle by climbing out the sliding rear window and grabbing hold of a tree. (Am. Compl. Darwin ¶ 30.) Priddle's vehicle came to rest approximately two blocks east of where it entered the drainage ditch. (Am. Compl. Darwin ¶ 32.) Priddle was able to see her belongings, including several computers and flight manuals, secured to the passenger seat when she observed her vehicle in its final location. (Am. Compl. Malanis ¶ 30.)
Priddle was escorted to O'Hare by Bensenville Police, but returned later in the day with colleagues and equipment to retrieve her belongings. (Am. Compl. Malanis ¶ 32.) Bensenville Police advised Priddle and her colleagues that the water level was still too dangerous to attempt retrieval of her belongings and to return when the water had receded. (Am. Compl. Malanis ¶ 33.)
Priddle returned with a tow truck driver the following morning, July 25, 2010, to find her truck had been moved. (Am. Compl. Malanis ¶¶ 35, 36.) Unable to locate a property owner who indicated approving a tow, Priddle reported her vehicle stolen. (Am. Compl. Malanis ¶¶ 37, 38.) Bensenville Police denied authorizing a police tow, but were able to locate the vehicle in Malanis's possession. (Am. Compl. Malanis ¶ 38.)
Priddle spoke with Malanis and demanded immediate access to her vehicle, but Malanis stated that he would need to speak to "his lawyer and his police chief" before allowing her access. (Am. Compl. Malanis ¶ 39.) Malanis never contacted Priddle, but the Bensenville Police advised that she would have to wait until the following day to retrieve her possessions. (Am. Compl. Malanis ¶¶ 40, 41.)
On July 26, 2010, Priddle arrived to find her vehicle inside a secure area at Great Lakes, a facility owned by Malanis. (Am. Compl. Malanis ¶¶ 42, 44.) Many of the valuable contents of Priddle's vehicle were missing, and Malanis denied any knowledge of the contents. (Am. Compl. Malanis ¶¶ 46, 48.) Malanis demanded $2, 400.00 from Priddle, which she wire transferred the same day. (Am. Compl. Malanis ¶¶ 51, 53.)
When asked by Bensenville Police who authorized the tow of Priddle's vehicle, Malanis initially stated that he could not remember. (Am. Compl. Malanis ¶ 61.) Upon further investigation, Malanis told police that he was authorized by a person named "George" at an address near the final location of Priddle's vehicle. (Am. Compl. Malanis ¶ 62.) However, the address given by Malanis did not exist, and no one named George was able to be located near the area. ( Id. )
Federal district courts have original jurisdiction of civil cases where the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000.00 and is between citizens of two different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). "In all cases, the party asserting federal jurisdiction has the burden of proof to show that jurisdiction is proper." Travelers Prop. Cas. v. Good, 689 F.3d 714, 722 (7th Cir. 2012) (citing McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 289 U.S. 178, 189 (1936). The proponent of jurisdiction has the burden of proving citizenship and the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence. Lewis v. Weiss, 631 F.Supp.2d 1063, 1065 (N.D. Ill. 2009) (citing Meridian Ins. Sec. Co. v. Sadowski, 441 F.3d 536, 543 (7th Cir. 2006)).
When a party moves to dismiss based on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), the district court must accept all well-pleaded facts within the complaint as true, but may also consider evidence outside of the pleadings to ensure jurisdiction is proper. Evers v. Astrue, 536 F.3d 651, 656-57 (7th Cir. 2008) (citing St. John's United Church of Christ v. City of Chicago, 502 F.3d 616, 625 (7th Cir. 2007)). This is especially true when the amount in controversy is challenged, requiring the plaintiff to support its jurisdictional assertion with competent proof. McMillan v. Sheraton Chi. Hotel & Towers, 567 F.3d 839, 844 (7th Cir. 2009) (quotations and citations omitted). Such proof requires more than "point[ing] to the theoretical availability of certain categories of proof." Id. (citations omitted).
"A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 ...