Martin v. Wells Fargo Bank

Filing 7

Order to Dismiss without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 11/14/11. (sk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
YOHONIA M. MARTIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:11-CV-285-RWS

ORDER
Plaintiff Yohonia Martin, pro se, filed this action on October 13, 2011
against Wells Fargo Bank and requested that she be permitted to proceed in
forma pauperis. On November 1, 2011, Magistrate Judge Susan S. Cole entered
an order granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and directed
the Clerk to assign the case for a frivolity determination pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), "the court shall dismiss the case at
any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal (i) is frivolous or
malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." A claim is

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

frivolous when it appears from the face of the complaint that the factual
allegations are "clearly baseless" or that the legal theories are "indisputably
meritless." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989); Carrol v. Gross, 984
F.2d 393, 393 (11th Cir. 1993).
Plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed as this Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction. In the absence of an express grant of statutory jurisdiction, original
jurisdiction may be predicated upon the presence of either a federal question or
diversity of citizenship. Baltin v. Alaron Trading Corp., 128 F.3d 1466, 1469
(11th Cir. 1997). Here, Plaintiff predicates jurisdiction on diversity of
citizenship as she is a Georgia resident and Defendant Wells Fargo is based in
San Francisco. However, Plaintiff cannot satisfy the amount in controversy
requirement of diversity jurisdiction. To allow for diversity jurisdiction, the
amount in controversy must “exceed[] the sum of $75,000, exclusive of interest
and costs.” 28 U.S.C. §1332. The only damages Plaintiff seems to allege in her
Complaint amount to $20,000, stemming from the loss of the balance of a bank
account held by Defendant.1 Compl. Dkt. No. [5] at 1. This amount falls

1

Although Plaintiff appears to seek ten years of interest on the $20,000 lost
balance, § 1332 requires the amount in controversy to exceed $75,000 “exclusive of
interest and costs.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (emphasis added). Even if Plaintiff could show
2

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

markedly short of the $75,000.01 required amount. Therefore, this Court cannot
have diversity jurisdiction under § 1332.
Further, this Court cannot assume jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as
Plaintiff’s Complaint presents no federal question. Plaintiff’s Complaint
specifically labels her cause of action as “negligence”—a state law claim.
Compl. Dkt. No. [5]. Plaintiff has in no way identified a federal law that could
be at issue in this case.2
Because the amount in controversy required for diversity jurisdiction is
not satisfied, and Plaintiff offers no grounds as to why this case presents a
federal question, this Court does not have jurisdiction over this matter and the
action must be DISMISSED, without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to close
this case. Plaintiff’s Motion to Conference [6] is DENIED, AS MOOT.

an exceptionally strong rate of return on her $20,000 lost balance, acquired interest
cannot allow a claim to meet the amount in controversy requirement.
2

Although Plaintiff cites “Banks and Banking” for the nature of the suit on the
Civil Cover Sheet, the only possible reason for this appears to be that the defendant in
this action is a bank. Dkt. No. [1-1] at 2. No other possible justification is found in
Plaintiff’s Complaint.
3

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

SO ORDERED, this 14th day of November, 2011.

_______________________________
RICHARD W. STORY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)