From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Short v. Enter. Rental Car Sales

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Nov 5, 2024
No. 24-10877 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 5, 2024)

Opinion

24-10877

11-05-2024

QASHONTAE HOSOMLA SHORT, Plaintiff, v. ENTERPRISE RENTAL CAR SALES, et al., Defendants.


ORDER DENYING MOTION (ECF NO. 8)

HON. GEORGE CARAM, STEEH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

The court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint on May 8, 2024, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court found that Plaintiff did not allege facts supporting a federal cause of action or facts establishing diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion containing additional allegations, although it is unclear what relief she is seeking. Assuming Plaintiff is requesting reconsideration of the court's dismissal order, she has not provided additional factual allegations establishing subject matter jurisdiction. In other words, Plaintiff has not shown that either diversity or federal question jurisdiction exists in this case. Without subject matter jurisdiction, the court lacks the authority to hear the case. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3); Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,” possessing “only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.”).

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion (ECF No. 8) is DENIED.


Summaries of

Short v. Enter. Rental Car Sales

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Nov 5, 2024
No. 24-10877 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 5, 2024)
Case details for

Short v. Enter. Rental Car Sales

Case Details

Full title:QASHONTAE HOSOMLA SHORT, Plaintiff, v. ENTERPRISE RENTAL CAR SALES, et…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

Date published: Nov 5, 2024

Citations

No. 24-10877 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 5, 2024)