Bridges v. M&T Bank et al

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell on 1/20/2017; re 9 MOTION to Dismiss filed by M&T Bank, 6 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM , LACK OF JURISDICTION, AND INSUFFICIENT SERVICE OF PROCESS MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by O. B. Garland ; separate order shall issue.cc:counsel, plaintiff pro se (KJA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
PADUCAH DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:16-CV-00178-TBR
KENNY BRIDGES

PLAINTIFF

v.
O.B. GARLAND
and
M&T BANK

DEFENDANTS
Memorandum Opinion

Defendants O.B. Garland and M&T Bank separately move to dismiss
Plaintiff Kenny Bridges’ pro se complaint.

[DN 6; DN 9; see DN 1.]

filed responses (styled as “motion[s] for my case not [to be] dismissed”).
11.]

M&T Bank also filed a reply.

Bridges has
[DN 8; DN

[DN 12.] The time for filing any further briefs

has passed, and Defendants’ motions are ripe for adjudication. As explained below,
this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to hear this case. Therefore,
Defendants’ motions [DN 6; DN 9] are GRANTED.
I. Plaintiff’s Claims
Plaintiff Kenny Bridges filed this action on a Court-approved general
complaint form.

[DN 1.] He sues Defendants O.B. Garland and M&T Bank.

Bridges’ complaint states neither a basis for federal jurisdiction nor any allegations
against the Defendants. See [id.]

As best the Court can tell from Bridges’

attachments to his complaint and from his responses to Defendants’ motions, this
case arises from Bridges’ purchase of an automobile from Garland Nissan, LLC.

According to Bridges, M&T Bank, the financier of the purchase, was supposed to
“tear up” the note if the vehicle was paid for in full within forty-five days of the
note’s February 26, 2016 execution. A receipt provided by Bridges purports to
show that he paid Garland in full for the vehicle on March 11, 2016 with $4736.00
in cash and a $13,313.90 check, totaling approximately $18,000.00.

[DN 1-1 at 4.]

However, Bridges alleges that his $18,000.00 payment was never forwarded to M&T
Bank.

As a result, he says, the bank attempted to collect upon the note for six

months, when Garland finally released the money to M&T.

Bridges seeks damages

of $100,000.00, although he does not state how he arrived at that sum.
Both Defendants now move to dismiss Bridges’ complaint, each raising three
identical arguments.

First, they argue that this Court has no subject-matter

jurisdiction to hear Bridges’ case, because the parties are not diverse and Bridges
has not pled a federal issue.

Second, Defendants contend that this Court has no

personal jurisdiction over them because Bridges’ service of the complaint and
summons via United Parcel Service was improper.

Finally, they claim that even if

this Court had jurisdiction, Bridges’ complaint fails to state a claim against
Defendants upon which the Court may grant relief.

Because subject-matter

jurisdiction does not exist in this case, the Court need not address the other issues
raised by Defendants.

2

II. Analysis
Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Jourdan v.
Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991).

However, “[o]ur duty to be ‘less stringent’

with pro se complaints does not require us to conjure up unpled allegations.”
McDonald v. Hall, 610 F.2d 16, 19 (1st Cir. 1979) (citation omitted).

And this

Court is not required to create a claim for Plaintiff. Clark v. Nat'l. Travelers Life
Ins. Co., 518 F.2d 1167, 1169 (6th Cir. 1975).

To command otherwise would

require the Court “to explore exhaustively all potential claims of a pro se plaintiff,
[and] would also transform the district court from its legitimate advisory role to the
improper role of an advocate seeking out the strongest arguments and most
successful strategies for a party.”

Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274,

1278 (4th Cir. 1985).
Federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and their powers are
enumerated in Article III of the Constitution. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.
of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Hudson v. Coleman, 347 F.3d 138, 141 (6th Cir.
2003) (“[I]t is well established that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,
possessing only that power authorized by the Constitution and statute.”).
“Jurisdiction defines the contours of the authority of courts to hear and decide
cases, and, in so doing, it dictates the scope of the judiciary's influence.” Douglas v.
E.G. Baldwin & Assoc. Inc., 150 F.3d 604, 606 (6th Cir. 1998), overruled on other
grounds by Cobb v. Contract Transp., Inc., 452 F.3d 543, 548-49 (6th Cir. 2006).

3

Moreover, federal courts have an independent duty to determine whether they have
jurisdiction and to “police the boundaries of their own jurisdiction.” Douglas, 150
F.3d at 607 (citing Ebrahimi v. City of Huntsville Bd. of Educ., 114 F.3d 162, 165
(11th Cir. 1997)).
The party who seeks to invoke a federal district court's jurisdiction bears the
burden of establishing the court's authority to hear the case. Kokkonen, 511 U.S.
at 377.

There are two ways a federal district court may have jurisdiction over a

case: diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and federal question jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Neither exists in this case.
A. Diversity Jurisdiction
To establish diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, there must be
complete diversity of citizenship, and the amount in controversy must exceed “the
sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs[.]” Complete diversity
requires that “each defendant [be] a citizen of a different State [than] each plaintiff.”
Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373 (1978).
of Bridges’ complaint, such diversity does not exist.

Here, on the face

Bridges, a Kentucky resident,

asserts that O.B. Garland resides in Kentucky and that M&T Bank resides in
Delaware.
allegations.

[DN 1 at 2-3.]

Defendants have said nothing that contradicts Bridges’

Bridges bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction,

Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377, but his allegations regarding the citizenship of
Defendants belie any argument that § 1332 diversity jurisdiction exists in this case.

4

B. Federal Question Jurisdiction
Additionally, Bridges fails to establish federal question jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1331.

Pursuant to that section, “[t]he district courts shall have original

jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the
United States.”

28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Here, Bridges’ complaint and its attachments

are devoid of any factual or legal allegations that Bridges has been deprived of any
federal statutory or constitutional right.

For that reason, Bridges fails to

demonstrate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, because Bridges has failed to establish that this Court has
subject-matter jurisdiction over this action, Defendants’ motions to dismiss [DN 6;
DN 9] must be GRANTED, and Bridges’ case must be DISMISSED.
An appropriate order will follow.

January 20, 2017

CC: Counsel of Record
Plaintiff, pro se

5