Ford et al v. Sims et al

Filing 4

ORDER DISMISSING CASE: Case dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See attached Memorandum and Order. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr on January 23, 2012. (Caldwell, M.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
DORIS FORD, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

3:12-cv-67 (CSH)

BRANDON SIMS, ET AL.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HAIGHT, Senior District Judge:
Plaintiffs bring this Complaint against seven defendants, alleging claims under state
common law (Counts One through Four, Six and Seven), the federal wire fraud statute, 18 U.S.C.
§ 1343 (Counts Five and Eight), and Connecticut statutes (Counts Nine and Ten). However,
Plaintiffs do not allege a proper basis for this Court to exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over
this matter. Even when no party has questioned the Court's subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court
must dismiss an action sua sponte when such jurisdiction is lacking. Endicott Johnson Corp. v.
Liberty Mut. Inc. Co., 116 F.3d 53, 58 (2d. Cir. 1997).
A federal court possesses subject-matter jurisdiction only when either: (1) the plaintiff
sets forth a colorable claim arising under the federal Constitution or a federal statute, 28 U.S.C. §
1331; or (2) there is complete diversity of citizenship between the plaintiff and all defendants. 28
U.S.C. § 1332 (a)(1).
Plaintiffs invoke federal-question jurisdiction by including in the Complaint two claims
under the federal wire fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1343, for violation of that statute and for

1

conspiracy to violate it. However, there is no private cause of action either for violation of the
wire fraud statute, or for conspiracy to violate the wire fraud statute. Raffaele v. Designers
Break, Inc., 750 F.Supp. 611, 612 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). Thus, these claims provide no basis for this
Court's jurisdiction. Plaintiffs' claims under Connecticut statutes (Counts Nine and Ten) do not
confer subject-matter jurisdiction on a federal court. Summers v. Marin County Recorders'
Office, 2009 WL 1096274, at *1 n. 3 (N.D.Cal. April 22, 2009).
Plaintiffs also claim diversity jurisdiction. Complaint at 2. However, Plaintiffs do not
allege complete diversity of the parties, as a complaint must to create such jurisdiction. See, e.g.,
Handelsman v. Bedford Village Assocs. Ltd. Partnership, 213 F.3d 48, 51-52 (2d Cir. 2000). On
the contrary, Plaintiffs' only relevant allegations are that they and all but one of Defendants are
residents of or located in the State of Connecticut. Complaint at 2-3. Thus, this Court does not
have jurisdiction over this action based on diversity of citizenship.
The Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and hence DISMISSES the action without
prejudice. The Clerk is directed to close the file.

It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: New Haven, Connecticut
January 23, 2012
[write full name when finalized]
Charles S. Haight, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge

2