Fuller v. Heartland Rehabilitation Hospital, LLC et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
NANCY CLAIRE FULLER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 26-2115-EFM-ADM
)
HEARTLAND REHABILITATION )
HOSPITAL, LLC d/b/a PAM Health )
Rehabilitation Hospital of Overland )
Park, and PAM HEALTH, LLC, )
)
Defendants. )
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On February 27, 2026, plaintiff Nancy Claire Fuller (“Fuller”) filed this case purporting to
assert claims for damages resulting from the negligent care provided by defendants Heartland
Rehabilitation Hospital d/b/a PAM Health Rehabilitation Hospital of Overland Park and PAM
Health, LLC. (ECF 1.) The complaint purports to invoke the court’s diversity jurisdiction over
this action. (ECF 1 ¶ 22, at 6.) On March 3, 2026, the court issued an order to show cause requiring
Fuller to identify the respective citizenship of each defendant’s members, including tracing layers
of members if necessary, so that the court could evaluate whether there is complete diversity
between the parties. (ECF 5.) Fuller timely responded to the court’s order and stated that the two
defendants were citizens of Pennsylvania, as shown by the corporate disclosure statement filed by
the two defendants in a prior case against them in this court. (ECF 8, at 2-3 (referencing Rule 7.1
disclosure statement filed in Gowing v. Pam Health Rehabilitation Hospital of Overland Park, et
al., Case No: 2:24-cv-02505-HLT-RES (D. Kan.), ECF 9 (filed Dec. 6, 2024)).) Fuller therefore
concluded that complete diversity of citizenship exists because “Fuller is a citizen of Kansas, and
both Defendants are citizens of Pennsylvania.” (ECF 8, at 3.) After reviewing Fuller’s response,
Case 2:26-cv-02115-EFM-ADM Document 16 Filed 05/04/26 Page 1 of 5

2
the court issued an order stating that it “is satisfied that plaintiff has sufficiently alleged facts that
the parties are completely diverse for subject matter jurisdiction purposes under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.”
(ECF 9.)
A week later, however, defendants Heartland Rehabilitation Hospital, LLC and PAM
Health, LLC filed their disclosure statement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1, identifying additional
members, including one member, The University of Kansas Hospital Authority, that is a citizen of
the state of Kansas. Defendants’ answer also raises an affirmative defense that Fuller’s “claims
fail for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and improper venue.” (ECF 10 ¶ 109, at 9.) The court
therefore issued a second order to show cause requiring Fuller to show cause why the court should
not recommend that the district judge dismiss this case without prejudice for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction because the parties are not completely diverse. (ECF 13.) Fuller timely responded to
the second order on April 14. (ECF 14.)
Fuller’s response questions whether the representations in defendants’ Rule 7.1 disclosure
statement are accurate as of the date the action was filed because the Gowing Rule 7.1 disclosure
statement filed 14 months earlier “described a materially different membership structure for the
same two corporate Defendants and that did not identify the University of Kansas Hospital
Authority anywhere in the chain.” (ECF 14, at 2.) Fuller also asks the court to order defendants
to file an amended Rule 7.1 disclosure that names the individual member of PAM Cubed, LLC
and to produce Post Acute Medical at Overland Park, LLC’s operating agreement and all
amendments and membership-admission records executed between December 6, 2024 (the date of
the Gowing disclosure) and March 23, 2026 (the date of the disclosure in this case). Alternatively,
Fuller suggests the court require defendants to submit “sworn declarations from corporate officers
Case 2:26-cv-02115-EFM-ADM Document 16 Filed 05/04/26 Page 2 of 5

3
with authority and personal knowledge, attesting to the membership of Post Acute Medical at
Overland Park, LLC as it existed on February 26, 2026.” (Id. at 3, 10.)
On April 28, Defendants filed a reply to Fuller’s response to the second order to show
cause. (ECF 15.) The reply points out that Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1 requires defendants’ corporate
disclosure statement to name and identify the citizenship of every individual and entity “when the
action is filed or removed to federal court” so Fuller’s request that defendants confirm this through
an amended Rule 7.1 disclosure and/or citizenship discovery is unnecessary, improper, and
overbroad. (ECF 15, at 1-4.) Nevertheless, defendants attached to their reply an affidavit from
the Chief Legal Officer of PAM Health confirming that defendants’ March 23 disclosure statement
is accurate and that, as of Feb. 27, 2026, “Heartland Rehabilitation Hospital, LLC was a citizen of
the State of Kansas, and has been a citizen of the State of Kansas since November 11, 2015.” (ECF
15-1 ¶ 6.)
For the reasons explained below, the court now recommends that the district judge dismiss
this case because Fuller has failed to establish that the court has subject matter jurisdiction.
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED BECAUSE THE COURT
LACKS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
Federal courts have limited jurisdiction and may exercise jurisdiction only when
specifically authorized to do so. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377
(1994); Firstenberg v. City of Santa Fe, N.M., 696 F.3d 1018, 1022 (10th Cir. 2012) (“Federal
subject matter jurisdiction is elemental. It cannot be consented to or waived, and its presence must
be established in every cause under review in the federal courts.”). A federal court has an
independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence
of a challenge from any party, Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006), and must
dismiss the action at any stage of the proceedings in which it becomes apparent that jurisdiction is
Case 2:26-cv-02115-EFM-ADM Document 16 Filed 05/04/26 Page 3 of 5

4
lacking. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”). Because federal courts’ jurisdiction is limited,
“there is a presumption against . . . jurisdiction, and the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears
the burden of proof.” Marcus v. Kan. Dep’t of Revenue, 170 F.3d 1305, 1309 (10th Cir. 1999).
The two statutory bases for federal subject-matter jurisdiction are (1) federal-question
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and (2) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. For a
federal court to have federal-question jurisdiction, the action must arise “under the Constitution,
laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. For a case to arise under federal law
within the meaning of § 1331, the plaintiff’s “well-pleaded complaint” must establish one of two
things: “either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief
necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Firstenberg, 696 F.3d
at 1022. Plaintiff bears the burden of showing that jurisdiction is proper and must demonstrate
that the case should not be dismissed. Sigg v. District Court of Allen Cnty., Kan., No. 06-2436-
KHV, 2007 WL 913926, at *1 (D. Kan. Mar. 23, 2007). “Conclusory allegations of jurisdiction
are not enough.” Id.
Here, Fuller does not allege subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of a federal question.
The complaint is directed to a Kansas state law claim (negligence), and the facts pleaded in the
complaint sound in state law tort allegations. (ECF 1.) Nor can Fuller allege subject matter
jurisdiction on the basis of diversity. For a federal court to have diversity jurisdiction, the plaintiff
must show the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and there is complete diversity of
citizenship between all plaintiffs and all defendants. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Accordingly, Fuller
must be a citizen of a different state from the defendants to establish diversity jurisdiction. 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1); see also Middleton v. Stephenson, 749 F.3d 1197, 1200 (10th Cir. 2014)
Case 2:26-cv-02115-EFM-ADM Document 16 Filed 05/04/26 Page 4 of 5

5
(“[D]iversity jurisdiction exists only if no plaintiff and no defendant are citizens of the same state
. . . .”). The complaint alleges that Fuller is a citizen of the State of Kansas. And defendants’ Fed.
R. Civ. P. 7.1 disclosure statement discloses that defendant Heartland Rehabilitation Hospital, LLC
is also a citizen of the State of Kansas by virtue of the Kansas citizenship of its sub-member, The
University of Kansas Hospital Authority. (ECF 11, at 2.) Thus, Fuller cannot establish that the
court has subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity because Fuller and at least one defendant
are citizens of the same state.
For the reasons explained above, Fuller has not established that the court has subject matter
jurisdiction on the basis of diversity or federal question. The court therefore recommends that the
district judge dismiss this case because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
* * * * *
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), and D. Kan. R. 72.1.4(b),
plaintiffs may file specific written objections to this report and recommendation within fourteen
days after being served with a copy. If they fail to file objections within the fourteen-day time
period, no appellate review of the factual and legal determinations in this Report and
Recommendation will be allowed by any court. See In re Key Energy Res. Inc., 230 F.3d 1197,
1199-1200 (10th Cir. 2000).
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Fuller’s complaint be dismissed for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated May 1, 2026, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Angel D. Mitchell
Angel D. Mitchell
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Case 2:26-cv-02115-EFM-ADM Document 16 Filed 05/04/26 Page 5 of 5