Braun v. Boyer et al
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM OPINION re 2 Complaint. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 5/14/2013. (nms)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
BRENDA LEE BRAUN,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civ. No. 13-485-RGA
CHESTER JOSHUA BOYER
and RITA BOYER,
Defendants.
Brenda Lee Braun, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, ProSe Plaintiff.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ft.
May
2013
Wilmington, Delaware
!
f
I
~~
istr1ct Judge:
Plaintiff Brenda Lee Braun filed this action seeking the return of all products,
payment of all products, an apology, and a no-contact order. She appears prose 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 alleges that she received threatening telephone calls and texts from
Chester Boyer. It is unclear where the acts of which Plaintiff complains occurred.
Plaintiff seeks damages in the sum of $700.00.
While the civil cover sheet asserts jurisdiction by reason of a federal question,
the Court perceives no basis for federal jurisdiction. While Plaintiff was a citizen of the
State of Delaware at the time she filed the Complaint (she now resides in Pennsylvania)
and Defendants are citizens of the State of Pennsylvania, Plaintiff alleges damages in
I
I
I
the amount of $700.00. Hence, the requisites for diversity jurisdiction are not met. See
I
28 U.S. C. § 1332(a) (for diversity jurisdiction the matter in controversy must exceed the
f
sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs). Accordingly, the Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over this matter.
In addition, it is unclear if this 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
I
(
brought. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b). Defendants reside in Pennsylvania, and it is not
known where events giving rise to the claim occurred.
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 clarify whether venue is
proper in this judicial district.
An appropriate order will be entered.
2
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?