Opinion
4:22-CV-00102-M
10-31-2022
Debbie Carmon, Plaintiff, v. Food Lion, Defendant.
ORDER & MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION
Robert T. Numbers, II United States Magistrate Judge
Debbie Carmon has sued Food Lion for negligence after she slipped and fell in one of its stores. After reviewing the complaint, the court ordered Carmon to explain the basis for its jurisdiction over this matter. Carmon submitted various documents in response to the court's order, but those documents do not allow this court to exercise jurisdiction over her claim. Therefore, the district court should dismiss the complaint without prejudice.
I. IFP Motion
Carmon asks the court to allow her to proceed with this action without paying the required filing fee and other costs associated with litigation (colloquially known as proceeding in forma pauperis or IFP). The court may grant her request if she submits an affidavit describing her assets and the court finds that she cannot pay the filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915. In assessing a request to proceed IFP, the court should consider whether the plaintiff can pay the costs associated with litigation “and still be able to provide [her]self and h[er] dependents with the necessities of life.” Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948) (internal quotations omitted). The court has reviewed Carmon's application and finds that she lacks the resources to pay the costs associated with this litigation. The court thus grants Carmon's motion and allows her to proceed IFP.
II. Federal Court Jurisdiction
In most civil cases, a court obtains subject-matter jurisdiction in one of two ways. First, under federal question jurisdiction, a federal court will have jurisdiction to resolve a claim if it arises “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Second, a federal court may have authority to hear a case through diversity jurisdiction if the amount at issue exceeds $75,000 and the parties to the case are citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. There must be complete diversity between the parties-each plaintiff must be a citizen of a different state than each defendant. Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267 (1806).
Carmon bears the burden of proving that the court has the authority to hear the case. Adams v. Bain, 697 F.2d 1213, 1219 (4th Cir. 1982) (“The burden of proving subject matter jurisdiction . . . is on the plaintiff, the party asserting jurisdiction.”). If she cannot meet her burden, the court must dismiss the case. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3).
While Carmon provided documents in response to the court's Order, she does not include the necessary information to establish subject-matter jurisdiction. Carmon acknowledges this is a slip and fall case, but she does not identify any federal law that supports her claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Therefore, she cannot invoke federal question jurisdiction. Carmon also has not provided enough information to prove she can invoke diversity jurisdiction. Corporations are considered citizens of every state where it is incorporated and where it has its principal place of business. Cent. W.Va. Energy Co. v. Mountain State Carbon, LLC, 636 F.3d 101, 103 (4th Cir. 2011). Carmon includes the address of the store she fell in, but she does not establish Food Lion's state of incorporation or where its principal place of business is. Therefore, Carmon has not established diversity of citizenship.
A recent case from the Eastern District of Virginia suggests that there is not diversity of citizenship here. In Holt v. Food Lion Grocery Store of Chester, No. 3:18-CV-00503, 2019 WL 112788 (E.D. Va. Jan. 4, 2019), the court considered the citizenship of a Food Lion store. The court noted that Food Lion, LLC was a North Carolina LLC and that LLC's sole ember was Delhaize America, LLC. Id. at *1. After analyzing the companies' corporate structures the court concluded that Delhaize America was a North Carolina citizen and that it was likely Food Lion was too. Id. at *4.
Given Carmen's failure to establish subject matter jurisdiction, the district court should dismiss her complaint without prejudice. The dismissal without prejudice will allow her to pursue her claim in state court or, if she can establish basis for federal jurisdiction, refile her claim in this court.
III. Conclusion
The court grants Carmon's IFP motion (D.E. 1), but for the reasons described above recommends that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice.
The Clerk of Court must serve a copy of this Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”) on each party who has appeared in this action. Any party may file a written objection to the M&R within 14 days from the date the Clerk serves it on them. The objection must specifically note the portion of the M&R that the party objects to and the reasons for their objection. Any other party may respond to the objection within 14 days from the date the objecting party serves it on them. The district judge will review the objection and make their own determination about the matter that is the subject of the objection. If a party does not file a timely written objection, the party will have forfeited their ability to have the M&R (or a later decision based on the M&R) reviewed by the Court of Appeals.