Curry v. Marriott Hotels, Inc. et al

Filing 5

OPINION AND ORDER that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 7/31/2014. (anc) Modified on 7/31/2014 in order to add opinion information (anc).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
DEBRA CURRY,
Plaintiff,
v.

1:14-cv-1839-WSD

MARRIOTT HOTELS, INC. et al.,
Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Court’s July 16, 2014, Order [4],
directing Plaintiff Debra Curry (“Plaintiff”) to show cause, on or before July 30,
2014, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
I.

BACKGROUND
On June 12, 2014, Plaintiff filed her Complaint [1] asserting various state

law causes of action against Marriott Hotels, Inc. (“Marriott”), Parking Company
of America (“PCA”), and Denise Lenox (“Lenox”). Plaintiff’s claims arise from
the alleged theft of personal items from her baggage after she checked into a hotel
operated by Marriot Hotels.

On July 16, 2014, the Court, after reviewing Plaintiff’s Complaint, issued its
Order addressing the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. While
not explicitly stated in the Complaint, the Court could only have diversity
jurisdiction because the Complaint asserted only state law causes of action. The
Court found, however, that the Complaint failed to establish diversity jurisdiction
because Plaintiff failed to allege the amount in controversy, which must exceed
$75,000. The Court also found that Plaintiff, having alleged that Marriott and
Parking were incorporated in the state of Georgia, rendering them Georgia
citizens,1 failed to allege sufficient facts to show that she was not a citizen of
Georgia. The Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff failed to respond to the
Court’s July 16, 2014, Order.
II.

DISCUSSION
Federal courts “have an independent obligation to determine whether

subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any
party.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 501 (2006). The Eleventh Circuit
consistently has held that “a court should inquire into whether it has subject matter
jurisdiction at the earliest possible stage in the proceedings. Indeed, it is well

1

The Complaint did not allege Lenox’s citizenship.
2

settled that a federal court is obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction
sua sponte whenever it may be lacking.” Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168
F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999).
The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction in this case only if there is federal
question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331–1332(a).
Federal-question jurisdiction exists when the “well-pleaded” allegations of a
plaintiff’s complaint show that the cause of action is based on federal law or the
United States Constitution. Beneficial Nat’l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1, 6
(2003). Plaintiff’s Complaint raises only questions of state law, and the Court does
not have federal-question jurisdiction.
Diversity jurisdiction exists where the matter in controversy exceeds
$75,000 and the suit is between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332().
“Diversity jurisdiction, as a general rule, requires complete diversity—every
plaintiff must be diverse from every defendant.” Palmer Hosp. Auth. of Randolph
Cnty., 22 F.3d 1559, 1564 (11th Cir. 1994). “Citizenship for diversity purposes is
determined at the time the suit is filed.” MacGinnitie v. Hobbs Grp., LLC, 420
F.3d 1234, 1239 (11th Cir. 2005). A corporation is a citizen of its state of
incorporation and the state in which it has its principal place of business. Rolling
Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020, 1021 n.1

3

(11th Cir. 2004) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1)).
Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s July 16, 2014, Order.2 As the
Court noted in its July 16, 2014, Order, Plaintiff alleged that Marriott and Parking
were incorporated in the state of Georgia, rendering them Georgia citizens. See 28
U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Plaintiff failed to allege the amount in controversy or her
citizenship,3 and thus failed to meet her obligation to establish the Court’s
jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1).

2

The Court may also dismiss a civil action for want of prosecution if a plaintiff,
after notice, fails or refuses to obey a lawful order of the Court. LR 41.3(A)(2),
NDGa.
3
In a lawsuit brought in September 2011, Plaintiff asserted that she was a resident
of Georgia, which, if still true, would prevent the Court from exercising diversity
jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims. (See N.D.Ga. 1:11-cv-3088, Complaint [5] at ¶
9).
4

III.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.4

SO ORDERED this 31st day of July, 2014.

4

If Plaintiff is able to provide the jurisdictional information that is required, she
may seek to file a new complaint.
5