Hill v. W.H.H. Trice & Co.

Full title: ERIC RODNEY HILL, Plaintiff, v. W.H.H. TRICE AND COMPANY, Defendant.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Date published: Jan 13, 2014

Civil Action No. 14-144 (D.D.C. Jan. 13, 2014)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 14-144

01-13-2014

ERIC RODNEY HILL, Plaintiff, v. W.H.H. TRICE AND COMPANY, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Federal district courts have jurisdiction in civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In addition, federal district courts have jurisdiction over civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000, and the suit is between citizens of different states. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

The the plaintiff brings this action against W.H.H. Trice & Co. demanding "a copy of his lease so he can use [it] as a reference[] to get another apartment." Compl. at 1. His single conclusory statement that the defendant "violated [his] civil, constitutional and 6^th Amendment" rights, id. at 2, does not articulate a viable constitutional claim for the purpose of establishing federal question jurisdiction. Notwithstanding the defendant's business office in Virginia, the the plaintiff does not demonstrate that the matter in controversy exceeds the $75,000 threshold. He thus fails to establish diversity jurisdiction. Accordingly, the complaint will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

_______________

United States District Judge