Braun v. Ahmed et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION re 2 Complaint. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 5/3/2013. (nms)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
BRENDA LEE BRAUN,
Civ. No. 13-447-RGA
JAY AHMED and JAY'S AUTO SALES, :
Brenda Lee Braun, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, Pro Se Plaintiff.
Plaintiff Brenda Lee Braun filed this action seeking payment for seven days
unpaid wages, medical bills, and other miscellaneous items. She appears pro se and
has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (D. I. 4). The Court proceeds to
review and screen the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Plaintiff worked for Defendant Jay Ahmed's garage in Reading, Pennsylvania.
She alleges that he owes her for seven days of work, three flower orders, two orders for
items from an oriental trading company, and six prayer shawls. She also alleges that,
while at the garage on March 7, 2012, she slipped and fell. The fall required a hospital
visit, and Ahmed would not pay the medical bills. Plaintiff seeks $26,205.00 in
damages, plus pain and suffering.
While the civil cover sheet asserts jurisdiction by reason of a federal question,
the Court perceives no basis for federal jurisdiction. Plaintiff was a citizen of the State
of Delaware at the time she filed the Complaint (she now resides in Pennsylvania);
Defendant is a citizen of the State of Pennsylvania; and Plaintiff alleges damages in the
amount of $26,205.00 Hence, the requisites for diversity jurisdiction are not met. See
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (for diversity jurisdiction the matter in controversy must exceed the
sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs). Hence, the Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over this matter.
In addition, it does not appear that the case is properly venued in this district. In
a civil action, venue is proper only in: (1) a judicial district where any defendant resides,
if all defendants reside in the same state; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part
of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of
property that is the subject of the action is situated; or (3) a judicial district in which any
defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be
brought. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Here, Defendant resides in Pennsylvania and the
events giving rise to the claim occurred in Pennsylvania.
For the above reasons, the Court will dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff will be given leave to amend the Complaint, in the event she
can cure the pleading deficiencies. Any amendment shall set clarify whether venue is
proper in this judicial district.
An appropriate order will be entered.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?