Ana Guardado v. City and County of Denver, d/b/a Denver International Airport

Denver, Colorado personal injury lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued on a premises liability theory.



The Plaintiff alleged that on August 8, 2021, she tripped on a floor mat while moving through a Transportation Security Administration ("TSA”) Security Screening Checkpoint ("SSCP”) at the Denver International Airport ("DIA”) and experienced significant injuries. Her initial claims against the Department of Homeland Security were dismissed for failure to exhaust her administrative remedies. Ms. Guardado then filed an amended complaint solely against the City and County of

Denver ("Denver”), alleging that Denver and TSA jointly controlled the SSCP and that the floor mat in the SSCP constituted a dangerous condition under the Colorado Premises Liability Act that was proximately caused by Denver's negligence in maintaining the SSCP.



* * *



A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) may take two forms: a facial attack or a factual attack. Baker v. USD 229 Blue Valley, 979 F.3d 866, 872 (10th Cir. 2020). "A facial attack assumes the allegations in the

complaint are true and argues they fail to establish jurisdiction. A factual attack goes beyond the allegations in the complaint and adduces evidence to contest jurisdiction.” Id. When considering evidence pursuant to a factual attack, "the court does not presume the truthfulness of the complaint's factual allegations, but has wide discretion to allow affidavits, other documents, and a limited evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed jurisdictional facts under Rule 12(b)(1).” United States v. Rodriguez-Aguirre, 264 F.3d 1195, 1203 (10th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). Therefore, a plaintiff may not rely on "[m]ere conclusory allegations of jurisdiction” but must provide facts to support a showing of jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. United States ex rel. Hafter, D.O. v. Spectrum Emergency Care, Inc., 190 F.3d 1156, 1160 (10th Cir. 1999). Consideration of material beyond the pleadings does not convert a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss into a summary judgment motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Davis ex rel. Davis v. United States, 343 F.3d 1282, 1296 (10th Cir. 2003).

Motion to dismiss granted.



Affirmed