Opinion
Civil Action 24-03021 (UNA)
11-15-2024
ZACHARY FLOWERS, Plaintiff, v. PAYPAL PREPAID, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ANA C. REYES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter, brought pro se, is before the Court on its initial review of Plaintiff's Complaint, ECF No. 1, and Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. The Court grants the motion and dismisses the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited and is set forth generally at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under those statutes, federal jurisdiction is available only when a “federal question” is presented, id. § 1331, or when the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy “exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs,” id. § 1332(a). “For jurisdiction to exist under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, there must be complete diversity between the parties, which is to say that the plaintiff may not be a citizen of the same state as any defendant.” Bush v. Butler, 521 F.Supp.2d 63, 71 (D.D.C. 2007) (citing Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373-74 (1978)). It is a “well-established rule” that for an action to proceed in diversity, the citizenship requirement must be “assessed at the time the suit is filed.” Freeport-McMoRan, Inc. v. K N Energy, Inc., 498 U.S. 426, 428 (1991). A party seeking relief in the district court must plead facts that bring the suit within the court's jurisdiction, Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a), or suffer dismissal of the case, Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3).
Plaintiff alleges only that defendant PayPal Prepaid “doesn't want to give me my refund check . . . and they lied and said they sent me the check when they never did.” Compl. at 2. Crucially, Plaintiff has not pleaded sufficient facts about the corporate defendant and the requisite amount in controversy to proceed in diversity. Therefore, this case will be dismissed by separate order.