Mosher v. Valentine

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, The Court DISMISSES this case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, DENIES Mosher's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 4), DENIES Mosher's motion for recruitment of counsel (Doc. 5) and motion for service of process at government expense (Doc. 6) as moot in light of the dismissal of this case and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 2/6/2024. (jdh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
BROOKE L. MOSHER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 24-cv-24-JPG

NOAH VALENTINE AND TOWING
COMPANY,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff Brooke L. Mosher’s Amended Complaint
(Doc. 10). She filed the Amended Complaint after the Court noted that she had not pled any
allegations in her original complaint except the names of the parties, so the Court could not tell
whether it had jurisdiction over her claims. Now that she has pled facts, the Court can say for
certain that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this case.
Mosher, a citizen of Illinois, complains that her car was wrongfully repossessed in the
State of Illinois by an Illinois towing company. The repossession damaged the car, a Toyota
Corolla hatchback. At the time of the repossession, Mosher had actually brought her account to
current, with no balance owed. She pleads claims labeled negligence, breach of warranty, and
consumer fraud, all state law causes of action.
Mosher’s allegations do not state a claim under federal law or between citizens of
different states, two of the most common bases for federal jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331
(federal question); 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (diversity jurisdiction). The Court does not recognize in
the pleadings a good faith basis for asserting any other source of federal jurisdiction. Mosher
may be able to obtain relief by filing a lawsuit in state court, but this is not the kind of dispute

she may bring to federal court.
Accordingly, the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case and:
•

DISMISSES this case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction;

•

DENIES Mosher’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 4) as she has not
alleged a viable cause of action able to be litigated in this court;

•

DENIES Mosher’s motion for recruitment of counsel (Doc. 5) and motion for service of
process at government expense (Doc. 6) as moot in light of the dismissal of this case; and

•

DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 6, 2024
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

2