Opinion
Civil Action 4:22-cv-4347
01-03-2023
JACOB REA'SHAW HERNDON, Plaintiff, v. CASH AMERICA PAWN, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
CHRISTINA A. BRYAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a form Complaint for a Civil Case Alleging Breach of Contract and Negligence against Defendant Cash America Pawn. ECF 1. While the precise nature of the claim is difficult to discern, allegations include that Defendant “Allow[ed] pawn item to be Remove / or Take from Pawn Shop” and “Tamper[ed] with Business and Cyber agreement; and theft of property.” Id. at 5. In the “Relief” category of the form Complaint, Plaintiff seeks “100% of a The Cash Pawn” [sic] and “100% All Businesses.”
The District Judge referred this case to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), the Cost and Delay Reduction Plan under the Civil Justice Reform Act, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. ECF 3.
“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3). Here, Plaintiff seeks to invoke the Court's diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1332. Id. at 1. The Court may exercise its diversity jurisdiction “where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 . . . and is between . . . citizens of different states.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). The party asserting diversity jurisdiction bears the burden of persuasion as to all aspects of jurisdiction. Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 96 (2010). Here, Plaintiff identifies both himself and Defendant as citizens of Texas. ECF 1 at 1-2. Further, Plaintiff has not pleaded for relief in a manner that would permit the Court to find that the amount-in-controversy requirement is met. Where the parties are not diverse and where the amount-in-controversy requirement has not been met, the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction over the suit, and RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's claims be DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling in a forum of competent jurisdiction. Carver v. Atwood, 18 F.4th 494, 498 (5th Cir. 2021).
The Clerk of the Court shall send copies of the memorandum and recommendation to the respective parties, who will then have fourteen days to file written objections, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). Failure to file written objections within the time period provided will bar an aggrieved party from attacking the factual findings and legal conclusions on appeal. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds.