Williams v. Citywide Auto Mart

Full title: Darlene Williams, Plaintiff, v. Citywide Auto Mart, Defendant.

Court: United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

Date published: Sep 23, 2021

1:21 CV 1788 (N.D. Ohio Sep. 23, 2021)

Opinion

1:21 CV 1788

09-23-2021

Darlene Williams, Plaintiff, v. Citywide Auto Mart, Defendant.

DONALD C. NUGENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

DONALD C. NUGENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Pro se plaintiff Darlene Williams has filed an informa pauperis civil complaint in this action against Citywide Auto Mart. (Doc. No. 1.) With her complaint, she has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 2). That motion is granted. For the reasons stated below, however, her complaint is dismissed.

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and have a duty to consider their subject matter jurisdiction in every case. Answers in Genesis of Kentucky, Inc. v. Creation Ministries Intern., Ltd., 556 F.3d 459, 465 (6^th Cir. 2009). “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, [it] must dismiss the action.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3). Federal subject-matter jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. 1331 when a claim arising under federal law is presented on the face of a well-pleaded complaint. Mich. South. R.R. Co. v. Branch &. St. Joseph Counties Rail Users Ass 'n, Inc., 287 F.3d 568, 573 (6th Cir. 2002). Federal jurisdiction may also be invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1332 when the plaintiff presents state-law claims between parties of completely diverse citizenship, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

Plaintiffs complaint does not demonstrate a valid basis for an exercise of federal subject matter jurisdiction under either § 1331 or § 1332. No claim arising under federal law is discernible on the face of plaintiffs complaint. The only claims plaintiff indicates she seeks to assert are state law claims, including breach of contract. (Doc. No. 1-1 at 1.) But plaintiff has not demonstrated a valid basis for an exercise of diversity jurisdiction over such state-law claims as she has not demonstrated that she and the defendant of completely diverse citizenship, ¹ or that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

1 The civil cover sheet plaintiff submitted with her complaint indicates she is a citizen of, and the defendant is incorporated or maintains its principal place of business, in Ohio. (Doc. No. 1 -1 at 1.)

Conclusion

Accordingly, plaintiffs complaint is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3). This dismissal is without prejudice to any claims plaintiff may properly assert in state court on the alleged facts. The Court further certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1 915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.