Mitchell v. Schneiders et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER that the matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 6/17/09.(KJR)cc: COR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON VANESSA K. MITCHELL, Plaintiff, v. J. EDWARDS SCHNEIDERS, et al., Defendants. ** Plaintiff complaint Vanessa ** ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) **

Civil Action No. 5:09-158-JMH MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

**

** filed a pro se

Mitchell

("Mitchell") J. Edwards

against

Defendants

Schneiders,

Robin

Schneider, and Shane Short ("Defendants") [Record No. 1]. Mitchell avers that on June 2, 2008 she purchased a new home, located at 1776 Millbank Road, Lexington, Kentucky, from Defendants, who are real estate developers. Mitchell also avers that Defendants failed to properly grade the property prior to sale and, as a result, water "has continued to pond on the property" [Record No. 1, ¶3]. Mitchell claims that Defendants have refused to correct the problem despite her protestations to the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, the Mayor, and others. In essence, her claims sound in contract law. Mitchell avers damages that include the decreased

value of her property, mental anguish and embarrassment, and punitive damages [Record No. 1, ¶¶ 17, 19]. filing fee to the Clerk of Court. The Court may screen non-prisoner, fee-paid pro se complaints under the authority of Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. Mitchell paid the

1999).

Pro se complaints are held to a less stringent standard El Bey v. Roop, 530 F.3d

than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. 407, 413 (6th Cir. 2008).

Apple v. Glenn, however, permits a

district court to dismiss, of its own accord, a fee-paid complaint filed by a non-prisoner if it appears the allegations lack "legal plausibility jurisdiction." necessary to invoke federal subject matter

Id. at 480.

The Court must be satisfied of its own

jurisdiction to hear the claims presented and may address the lack of jurisdiction at any time during the course of an action. Campanella v. Commerce Exch. Bank, 137 F.3d 885, 890 (6th Cir. 1998); Franzel v. Kerr Mfg. Co., 959 F.2d 628, 630 (6th Cir. 1992). Dismissal of claims is required where the Court lacks subjectmatter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Mitchell has the RMI Titanium

burden of demonstrating subject matter jurisdiction.

Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 78 F.3d 1125, 1134 (6th Cir. 1996). Mitchell is unable to proceed in this Court because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear her claims, regardless of their merit. Mitchell's Complaint sounds in contract, a state law

cause of action, and plainly does not raise a federal question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The Court also lacks subject matter

jurisdiction on the basis of diversity because the parties lack diversity. 28 U.S.C. § 1332; SHR Ltd. Partnership v. Braun, 888

F.2d 455, 456 (6th Cir. 1989). Mitchell is a Kentucky resident and -2-

has provided an address for the Defendants at 1029 Monarch Street, Suite 220, Lexington, Kentucky. Thus, the parties are not diverse Furthermore, in her

because they are all residents of Kentucky.

Prayer for Relief, Mitchell references Schneider Designs, Inc., not named as a Defendant, which is a Kentucky corporation also located at the Monarch Street address according to business filings with the Kentucky Secretary of State.1 that the parties are diverse. Additionally, the Court is not persuaded that Mitchell's suit satisfies the $75,000 amount in controversy requirement for Mitchell has not established

diversity jurisdiction.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Mitchell prays for

a damages award in the amount of $1 million, plus punitive damages, costs, and interest. The Court is skeptical that Mitchell has made a good faith attempt to state the jurisdictional amount in

controversy.

Charvat v. GVN Mich., Inc., 561 F.3d 623, 628 (6th

Cir. 2009). For example, she avers damages from mental anguish and embarrassment as a result of Defendants alleged breach of the real estate contract, damages not typically compensable under contract law. Also, Mitchell has not asked for rescission of the contract, Rather, the prayer for

or the return of her payment for the home.

$1 million seems to be an arbitrary and exaggerated estimate of her
1

See Online Business Database, Kentucky Secretary of State, http://apps.sos.ky.gov/business/obdb/(S(ujssmm55nurovt55dupwm0mz) )/showentity.aspx?id=0256496&ct=09&cs=99998 (last visited June 17, 2009). -3-

damages from the standing water on her property.

Despite a less

stringent review of her Complaint, the Court is doubtful that either the cost to repair Mitchell's property or the lost value of her property approach the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold, much less $1 million. Mitchell may have failed to allege the

jurisdictional amount in controversy. In conclusion, Mitchell's claims may have merit, but her claims cannot be decided by this Court. this action without prejudice for The Court will dismiss of subject matter

lack

jurisdiction in order for Mitchell to proceed with her claims in another forum. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this action be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This the 17th day of June, 2009.

-4-