Opinion
3:21-cv-01821-K-BT
11-18-2021
AMBER J. MICHALAK, Plaintiff, v. SANDY CRUMPTON, Defendant.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
REBECCA RUTHERFORD, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Amber J. Michalak's lawsuit seeking specific performance or damages from Defendant Sandy Crumpton for an alleged breach of a real-estate contract. Compl. 5-6 (ECF No. 3). For the reasons explained in these Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation, the Court lacks the power to adjudicate Michalak's sole state-law cause of action between nondiverse parties. Therefore, the Court must DISMISS this case without prejudice for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction. See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3).
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and “possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (Scalia, J.) (citations omitted). And federal courts have an independent duty to examine their subject-matter jurisdiction and to dismiss any case in which jurisdiction is lacking. Lyons v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 2021 WL 2557154, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 12, 2021) (Rutherford, J.) (citing Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999)), rec. accepted, 2021 WL 2554454 (N.D. Tex. June 22, 2021) (Scholer, J.); accord McDonal v. Abbott Lab'ys, 408 F.3d 177, 182 n.5 (5th Cir. 2005) (“[A]ny federal court may raise subject[-]matter jurisdiction sua sponte.”); see 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.”).
Unless otherwise provided by statute, federal jurisdiction requires (1) a federal question arising under the Constitution, a federal law, or a treaty, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or (2) complete diversity of citizenship between adverse parties and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The party asserting jurisdiction must allege the jurisdictional basis “affirmatively and distinctly;” it cannot be “established argumentatively or by mere inference.” Getty Oil Corp. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 841 F.2d 1254, 1259 (5th Cir. 1988) (citing Ill. Cent. Gulf R.R. Co. v. Pargas, Inc., 706 F.2d 633, 636 & n.2 (5th Cir. 1983)).
Here, Michalak alleges diversity jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Compl. at 1, 3. However, in her “Complaint to Require Performance of a Contract to Convey Real Property (28 U.S.C. § 1332; Diversity of Citizenship), ” Michalak states she is a citizen of Texas and resides in Nevada, Texas. Compl. 1, 3, 8. And Crumpton is also a citizen of Texas and resides in Lavon, Texas. Id. at 2, 3, 8. “Complete diversity requires that all persons on one side of the controversy be citizens of different states than all persons on the other side.” SGK Props., LLC v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 881 F.3d 933, 939 (5th Cir. 2018) (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Settlement Funding, LLC v. Rapid Settlements, Ltd., 851 F.3d 530, 536 (5th Cir. 2017) (citing McLaughlin v. Miss. Power Co., 376 F.3d 344, 353 (5th Cir. 2004) (per curiam))). In this case, complete diversity is lacking because the plaintiff and the defendant are both citizens of Texas.
Both Nevada and Lavon are located in Collin County, Texas. Collin County is situated in the Eastern District of Texas. Because the Court finds that this case should be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, it pretermits consideration of whether the case should be transferred to the proper venue.
Furthermore, “[t]he party invoking federal diversity jurisdiction, ” here Michalak, “bears the burden of establishing the amount of controversy” exceeds $75,000, the jurisdictional amount, “by a preponderance of the evidence.” Hartford Ins. Grp. v. Lou-Con Inc., 293 F.3d 908, 910 (5th Cir. 2002). The Court first examines the Complaint to determine whether the claims facially and apparently exceed the jurisdictional amount. Id. In this case, Michalak sues to enforce specific performance of a real estate contract to buy a property from Crumpton for $30,000. Compl. 4, 8-13. Alternatively, Michalak asks the Court to award “damages in the amount of $65,000, ” which is the “[f]ull contract amount paid” plus “[t]ime and labor . . . for hours and money spent to clean [the Property] up.” Id. at 6. It is facially apparent from Michalak's Complaint that the amount in controversy is below the requisite jurisdictional amount necessary to support diversity jurisdiction.
Also, Michalak fails to allege any facts to support federal-question jurisdiction. Instead, she alleges one state-law cause of action for breach of contract. See generally Compl. This state-law claim does not give rise to federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. And Michalak does not contend that it does. See generally Compl. Therefore, Michalak fails to allege any facts to support federal-question jurisdiction.
Accordingly, under the most liberal construction of Michalak's Complaint, the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and the power to adjudicate the case.
Recommendation
For the reasons stated, the District Court should DISMISS this action without prejudice under Rule 12(h)(3) because Plaintiff failed to plead jurisdictional facts that give rise to subject-matter jurisdiction and provide the District Court the power to adjudicate the case.
SO RECOMMENDED.