Click Here to Watch How To Find A Lawyer by Kent Morlan

Click Here For The Best Charleston Personal Injury Lawyer Directory

If no lawyer is listed, call 918-582-6422 and MoreLaw will help you find a lawyer.

Defendant's Attorney: Todd A. Mount, Edgar A. Poe, Jr. Adam B. Poe, Caleb B. David, Christoper D. Negley, Ashley W. Winsky, Julie Brennan, Timothy A. Montgomery

Description: Charleston, West Virginia personal injury truck wreck lawyers represented Plaintiff on auto negligence wrongful death theories claiming that Nichole Ashley Laufert was killed as a result of a truck wreck.


This case concerns a motor vehicle accident that occurred on Interstate 77 (“I-77”) in Fayette County, West Virginia resulting in the death of Nichole Ashley Laufert On April 30, 2020, Stephan Rogian was traveling on I-77 northbound while operating a 2016 Ford F350, pulling a loaded gooseneck trailer. At some point, the gooseneck trailer broke loose from Defendant Rogian's truck and came to rest perpendicularly in the travel lanes of I-77.

Defendant Martin Neitch was operating a tractor trailer also on I-77 northbound and crashed into the detached trailer. The Neitch tractor trailer remained on the travel portion of the roadway following the crash.

Nichole Laufert was also driving north on I-77 in a 2007 Chevrolet Malibu. She struck Defendant Neitch's stopped tractor trailer and died from her injuries.

On January 14, 2022, Plaintiff Kandi Laufert, individually and as the personal representative of the estate of the decedent, filed a Complaint in this court relating to the automobile accident. She filed an Amended Complaint on March 18, 2022, and a Second Amended Complaint on April 29, 2022. Ms. Laufert's Second Amended Complaint lists twenty defendants; however, nine defendants were dismissed. The eleven remaining defendants are: (1) Davis Logistics, LLC; (2) Stephan Rogian; (3) Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.; (4) AWF Express, LLC; (5) American Wood Fibers, Inc.; (6) Martin Neitch; (7) Trans Global Projects Group; (8) TGP Logistics, LLC; (9) Virginia International Terminals, LLC (“VIT”); (10) JH Rose Logistics, LLC; and (11) Legacy Hauling, LLC/Inc. To date, eight of the eleven remaining defendants have answered Ms. Laufert's Second Amended Complaint.

On September 22, 2022, the court ordered Ms. Laufert to show cause as to why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Ms. Laufert responded to the order on October 6, 2022, and several of the defendants responded to Ms. Laufert's brief. Defendants JH Rose Logistics, LLC and VIT have each filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Because the court dismisses this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the motions are moot.


Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, meaning that they have the power to act solely in the areas authorized by Congress and the United States Constitution. Strawn v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 530 F.3d 293, 296 (4th Cir. 2008). The two bases for subject matter jurisdiction are federal question and diversity. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. Federal question jurisdiction “exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987); 28 U.S.C. § 1331. District courts have diversity jurisdiction where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties to the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Complete diversity means that no plaintiff is a citizen of the same state as any defendant. Navy Fed. Credit Union v. LTD Fin. Servs., LP, 972 F.3d 344, 352 (4th Cir. 2020). An individual is a citizen of his or her place of domicile, which is established by physical presence in a state with the intent to remain there indefinitely. Bowles v. Lowe's Home Ctrs., LLC, No. 2:14-cv-30524, 2015 WL 13049455, at *3 (S.D. W.Va. Apr. 17, 2015) (citing Vandevander v. Jimenez, No. 3:11-CV-85, 2011 WL 13240040, at *2 (N.D. W.Va. Dec. 5, 2011)). Further, “the legal representative of the estate of a decedent shall be deemed to be a citizen only of the same State as the decedent.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(2). Finally, a corporation is deemed to be a citizen of each state of incorporation and in the state “where it has its principal place of business,” id. § 1332(c)(1), and a limited liability company (“LLC”) is a citizen of every state in which any of its members is a citizen, Cent. W.Va. Energy Co. v. Mountain State Carbon, LLC, 636 F.3d 101, 103 (4th Cir. 2011).

In cases where a lawsuit begins in federal court, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. Demetres v. E.W. Constr., Inc., 776 F.3d 271, 272 (4th Cir. 2015). Federal courts are presumed to lack jurisdiction until it has been demonstrated to exist. See Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 692 (1986) (Stevens, J., dissenting); Celli v. Shoell, 40 F.3d 324, 327 (10th Cir. 1994); see also 13 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3522 (2022) (“[T]here is a presumption that a federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and the party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction must affirmatively allege the facts supporting it.” (citations omitted)). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), an action must be dismissed if the plaintiff fails to make this requisite showing, and the issue of jurisdiction may be raised by a court sua sponte or through a motion filed by a party. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), (h)(3). Because a federal court cannot proceed to the merits of a case without subject matter jurisdiction, Rule 8(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a pleading contain “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction.”...
Laufert v. Davis Logistics, LLC (S.D. W.Va. 2022)

Outcome:
ule 8 not only requires a statement of jurisdiction but also “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). Ms. Laufert's 182-paragraph Second Amended Complaint, which contains repetitive but insufficient allegations, is glaringly inconsistent with the Rule. Rule 8 serves the purposes of “avoid[ing] verbose allegations,” “notify[ing] the defendants of the claim upon which plaintiff seeks recovery,” assisting “the disposition of litigation on its merits,” and “achiev[ing] brevity and clarity in pleading.” Walter Reade's Theatres, Inc v. Loew's Inc., 20 F.R.D. 579, 582 (S.D.N.Y. 1957). This pleading fails in every respect. This court has been asked to surmise the citizenships of the parties and, until Ms. Laufert filed her response to the court's show cause order, guess the amounts in controversy. Ms. Laufert has not demonstrated that the court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Further, even with the sparse information contained in the Complaint on this issue, it appears to the court that subject matter jurisdiction does not exist.

For the foregoing reasons, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter, and thus, this case is DISMISSED.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: