Soliman v. Pearson et al

Filing 36

ORDER: The Court now orders sua sponte that this case and all claims therein are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction, each party to pay his own costs. All pending motions are thereby rendered MOOT. By Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 08/22/13. (alvsl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge R. Brooke Jackson
Civil Action No 13-cv-00124-RBJ
MAHER SOLIMAN,

Plaintiff,
v.
JIMMY F. PEARSON;
ARON PEARSON; and
DOES 1 THROUGH 20,
Defendants.

ORDER

The Court sua sponte orders that this case be dismissed without prejudice and directs the
Clerk to enter final judgment accordingly. The Court has described the nature of this case in two
previous orders issued April 25, 2013, [docket #20] (ordering plaintiff to show cause why the
case should not be dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction), and May 9, 2013, [#23] (finding
that plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint did not adequately allege that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000 but granting plaintiff leave to amend his complaint again to attempt
to cure that deficiency). In response to the latter order Mr. Soliman filed a Second Amended
Complaint [#24], which in turn unleashed another round of motions and responses as Mr.
Soliman and Mr. Pearson, both of whom represent themselves, continue to slug it out.
As indicated in the May 9, 2013 order, the dispute “appears to be the outgrowth of a state
court domestic relations case in which either the plaintiff did not receive what he considers to
have been a satisfactory result or he believes that his former wife has not complied with orders

concerning parental responsibility.” Id. at 4. There are also some aspects of the dispute that
might be presented to an appropriate district attorney’s office for consideration (such as his
charges of theft, alleged extortion, blackmail, kidnapping and threats against his person).
However, those observations do not necessarily compel the conclusion that there is no federal
court jurisdiction over any aspect of this case. Rather, they go to the potential merits of the case.
Nevertheless, the Court cannot proceed to evaluate the merits unless it has jurisdiction.
Subject matter jurisdiction is purported to be based on diversity of citizenship under 28
U.S.C. § 1332. There is not dispute that the opposing parties are citizens of different states.
However, diversity jurisdiction also requires that the matter in controversy exceed the sum or
value of $75,000. Ordinarily that is not a particularly high hurdle to jump. As I wrote in the
May 9, 2013 order, “
[t]he plaintiff’s claim regarding the amount in controversy is presumed to support
diversity jurisdiction. Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 251 F.3d 1294, 1289
(10th Cir. 2001). However, a conclusory allegation that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000, without anything else indicating that this might in
fact be so, is insufficient to establish federal court jurisdiction. See, e.g., Adams v.
Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 225 F.3d 1179, 1182 (10th Cir. 2000). “Merely
asserting an amount in controversy equal to the minimum sum required does not
entitle [plaintiff] to sue in federal court. He must allege sufficient damages to
assure the district court that the jurisdictional requirement has not been ‘thwarted
by the simple expedient of inflating the complainant’s ad damnum clause.”
Gibson v. Jeffers, 478 F.2d 216, 221 (10th Cir. 1973).
Id. at 3.
The Second Amended Complaint attempts to fix the shortcomings of the previous
versions by adding the allegation, “AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY EXCEEDS $75,000.
Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory damages in the sum of $500,000.00 for each of the
following counts (COUNT II; COUNT III; COUNT IV; COUNT V; COUNT VII; COUNT VIII;
COUNT IX; COUNT X and COUNT XI and $1,000,000.00 (One Million Dollars) for COUNT

VI in addition to punitive damages and attorney’s fees in an amount in excess of the jurisdiction
minimum of this Court.” [#24] at ¶25. However, merely inserting large round numbers is not
enough, as the cases cited in May 9 order and repeated above indicate. Plaintiff has alleged no
plausible claim that he has sustained damages exceeding $75,000. He claims that Mr. Pearson
stole $13,000 worth of Iraqi dinars and other person items such as videos, pictures and
documents as to which he alleges no specific monetary value. Beyond the alleged theft the
substance of the complaint is that his ex-wife’s present husband is interfering with his custodial
rights and doing other things that cause him a considerable degree of distress, frustration and
anger. Without depreciating his concerns, the Court simply finds and concludes that Mr.
Soliman has not provided any plausible assurance that the jurisdictional requirements of a federal
court are satisfied in this case.
I have given due regard to Mr. Soliman’s pro se status. However, I have also given Mr.
Soliman, who has indicated that he is a law school graduate, an explanation of what is required
and multiple chances to respond. I see no point in suggesting another round of pleadings.
Instead, the Court now orders sua sponte that this case and all claims therein are hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction, each party
to pay his own costs. All pending motions are thereby rendered MOOT.
DATED this 22nd day of August, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

___________________________________
R. Brooke Jackson
United States District Judge