Opinion
Civil Action 23-cv-1559
09-22-2023
TAMBRA SMITH, Plaintiff, v. JIM SHORKEY NORTH HILLS CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP RAM, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
PATRICIA L. DODGE, United States Magistrate Judge.
I. Recommendation
It is respectfully recommended that the Court dismiss this case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).
Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised by the Court sua sponte at any time. Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986); Van Holt v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 163 F.3d 161, 166 (3rd Cir. 1998).
II. Report
A. Background
Plaintiff Tambra Smith, proceeding pro se, has commenced this civil action against Defendants Jim Shorkey North Hills Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram and Ally Financial (“Defendants”). The Complaint (ECF No. 1) asserts claims against Defendants of “unlawful novation,” fraud, civil conspiracy, and unjust enrichment and seeks rescission of contracts Plaintiff entered into with Defendants in connection to the purchase and financing of a vehicle.
The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff resides in this District (ECF No. 1-1 ¶ 8.) Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Jim Shorkey North Hills Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram is a “domestic liability corporation with its principal place of business at 2900 Rt. 30 West, Irwin, Pennsylvania 15642.” (Id. ¶ 9.) The Complaint identifies Defendant Ally Financial as a “foreign corporation” located in Detroit, Michigan. (Id. ¶ 10.)
B. Discussion
Citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), Plaintiff claims that this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over her claims because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and diversity exists between the parties. Plaintiff does not claim that any of the causes of action that she has asserted involve a federal question, nor does she invoke any other basis for federal jurisdiction. A review of the Complaint confirms that none of Plaintiff's claims arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. §1331.
Plaintiff has named as a defendant “Jim Shorkey North Hills Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram.” A review of the Pennsylvania Department of State's website, of which the Court takes judicial notice,reveals that “Jim Shorkey North Hills Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram” is a fictious name owned by an entity identified as Jim Shorkey North Hills 1, LLC (“Jim Shorkey North Hills”). Under Pennsylvania law, “the use of a fictitious name does not create a separate legal entity, but is merely descriptive of a person or business who does business under another name.” Burlington Coat Factory of Pa., LLC v. Grace Const. Mgmt. Co., LLC, 126 A.2d 1010, 1024 (Pa. Super. 2015). Thus, to determine citizenship, “Jim Shorkey North Hills Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram” has no “stand-alone existence” and its fictitious name is to be disregarded. Gentry v. Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., 383 F.Supp.3d 442, 454 (E.D. Pa. 2019).
A court may take judicial notice of public records. M&M Stone Co. v. Pennsylvania, 388 Fed.Appx. 156, 162 (3rdCir. 2010). The Pennsylvania Department of State's website is: https://file.dos.pa.gov/search/business and was last accessed on September 15, 2023.
With respect to jurisdiction based on diversity, a court can base subject matter jurisdiction only on the citizenship of real and substantial parties to a case. Johnson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. 724 F.3d 337, 358 (3d Cir. 2019). Here, the real party defendant is Jim Shorkey North Hills, which is identified on the Department of State's website as a Pennsylvania corporation formed in 1988 with an address of 7670 McKnight Road, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
For diversity purposes, a corporation is a citizen of both (1) its state of incorporation, and (2) the state where it has its principal place of business, that is, the state where the company's high-level officers direct, control and coordinate the company's activities. Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (2010); see also, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). As reflected in public records, Jim Shorkey North Hills is active domestic corporation formed in Pennsylvania with its principal place of business in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. It is therefore a citizen of Pennsylvania.
Under U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), this Court has subject matter jurisdiction where the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000 and is between citizens of different States. As noted by the Third Circuit in Mid-Atl. Nat'l Bank v. Hansen, 48 F.3d 693, 696 (3d Cir. 1995), “diversity jurisdiction must be complete; that is, no plaintiff can be a citizen of the same state as any of the defendants” (citations omitted). Plaintiff asserts that she is a citizen of Pennsylvania. Jim Shorkey North Hills, owner of the fictitious name “Jim Shorkey North Hills Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram,” is also a Pennsylvania citizen. Thus, complete diversity does not exist.
In absence of complete diversity, the court may drop non-essential non-diverse parties to preserve jurisdiction. Field v. Volkswagenwerk, 626 F.2d 293, 296 (3d Cir.1980), modified on other grounds, Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Lamin, 490 U.S. 826, 833-34 (1989); Fed.R.Civ.P. 21. That said, “whether a party may be dropped depends on whether the party is ‘indispensable' to a just and meaningful litigation of the claims remaining in the suit.” Field at 297. That determination is governed by the factors set forth in Rule 19, Fed. R. Civ. Pro, which are: “(1) to what extent will a judgment rendered in the party's absence be prejudicial to the party or to those who remain; (2) to what extent will protective measures in the judgment ameliorate or avoid such prejudice; (3) to what extent will a judgment rendered in the party's absence be adequate; and (4) to what extent will the plaintiff have an adequate remedy if the action is dismissed due to the absence of the party.” Xi v. Lu, 226 Fed.Appx. 189, 192 (3d Cir. 2007); see also Rule 19(b), Fed. R. Civ. Pro.
Applying those factors here, Jim Shorkey North Hills is indispensable to the just and meaningful litigation of the claims asserted by Plaintiff in the Complaint. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff completed a credit application to purchase a vehicle at the Jim Shorkey automobile dealership located in Irwin, Pennsylvania, that such application was approved and a loan provided by Defendant Ally Financial while she was at the dealership, and that she signed a contract to purchase a 2018 Jeep Cherokee using the proceeds of the Ally Financial loan while at the dealership. (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 12-15.)The Complaint further alleges that after that, Jim Shorkey North Hills sold the contract to Ally Financial and throughout these transactions, Defendants committed fraud, engaged in a civil conspiracy and were unjustly enriched. Plaintiff contends that the contract should be rescinded, that she be reimbursed all monies paid for the vehicle, and that she is entitled to additional damages. (Id. ¶¶ 22-53.)
As the contract at issue was not attached as an Exhibit to the Complaint, the Court cannot analyze its terms.
The allegations against Defendants are intertwined to such an extent that a judgment rendered in Jim Shorkey North Hills's absence would be prejudicial both to it and also to Ally Financial and Plaintiff. Among other reasons, Plaintiff might be forced to pursue a separate action against each Defendant, resulting in a danger of inconsistent results. Alternatively, if only Ally Financial is a party, a judgment in the absence of both parties could be inadequate to Plaintiff given her allegations that Defendants conspired to defraud her. Indeed, it could be that in the absence of Jim Shorkey North Hills, Ally Financial would seek dismissal of Plaintiff's claims. Moreover, a full exploration of the facts and determination of potential liability would be difficult without the participation of both Defendants, and any rescission of the contract is just as likely to impact both. Furthermore, because the allegations are so intertwined, no protective measures in any judgment could ameliorate or avoid such prejudice.
Simply put, Jim Shorkey North Hills is indispensable to the just and meaningful litigation of the claims of this case. The court therefore declines to drop Jim Shorkey North Hills from the case to preserve jurisdiction. Consequently, as complete diversity does not exist, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case.
C. Conclusion
For these reasons, it is respectfully recommended that the Court dismiss this action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).
D. Notice
Under the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), and Rule 72.D.2 of the Local Civil Rules, Plaintiff is allowed fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order to file objections to this Report and Recommendation. Failure to do so will waive the right to appeal. Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n.7 (3d Cir. 2011).