Fancey v. Berkey

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM ORDER dismissing without prejudice for lack of subject jurisdiction 1 Complaint; directing the clerk to close this case. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 9/15/2022. (c/m 9/15/2022 - dg3s, Deputy Clerk)

Download PDF
Case 8:22-cv-02143-GJH Document 2 Filed 09/15/22 Page 1 of 3 IN TH E U N ITED STATE S D ISTR IC T C O U RT FO R TH E DISTRIC T O F M A RY LAN D e œ = rt - = =T CECILIA ADELE FANCEY, œ r œ O m Plaintiff, =- = = a CivilActionNo.:GJH-22-211 p CHRISTOPHER B.BERKEY, Defendant. M EM O R AND U M O RD ER PlaintiffCeciliaAdele Fancey filed the above-captioned Complainton August24,2022 and paid the fullfiling fee. ECF No.1. Forthe reasons stated below,the Complaintm ustbe dism issed. PlaintiffallegesthatDefendantChristopherB.Berkey,a contractor,owesher$16,975 on an outstanding loan and a$3,000 refund on anunfinishedconstmction project. ECF No.1at6. Plaintiffseeksto repossessDefendant'struck which waspurchased with the loan and to gnrnish Defendant'swagesto pay the$3,000 refund.1d at7. ThisCourtismindfulofitsobligationto liberally construethepleadingsofself-represented litigants,such asthe instantComplaint. See Erickwn v.Pardus,551 U.S.89,94 (2007). In evaluating such acomplaint,thefactualallegationsareassumedto betrue.1d.at93 (citing Bell AtlanticC>t?r#.v.Twombly,550U.S.544,555-56(2007:.Nonetheless,liberalconstnzctiondots notmean thatthisCourtcan ignoreaclearfailurein thepleadingsto allegefactswhich setforth a cognizableclaim.SeeWellerv.Dep'tofsoc.Servs.,901F.2d387(4thCir.1990). TheCourtmustexaminewhetherfederaljudsdictionpermitsadjudicationoftheseclaims. Under the ûtwell-pleaded complaint''rule,the facts showing the existence of subject matter Case 8:22-cv-02143-GJH Document 2 Filed 09/15/22 Page 2 of 3 jurisdiction ççmustbeaffirmatively alleged in thecomplaint.''Pinkley,Inc.v.City ofFrederick, 191F.3d394,399(4thCir.1999)(citingMcNuttv.Gen1M otorsAcceptanceC/rp.,298U.S.178 (1936)). û:A courtistopresllme,theretbre,thatacase liesoutsideitslimitedjurisdiction unles's anduntiljurisdictionhasbeen showntobeproper.''UnitedStatesv.Poole,531F.3d263,i74 (4thCir.2008)(citingKokkonenv.GuardianL(TeIns.Co.,511U.S.375,377(1994)).M oreover, theléburdenofestablishing subjectmatterjmisdiction ison ...theparty assertingjlm'sdiction.'' Robb Evans(f Assocs.,LLC v.Holibaugh,609 F.3d 359,362 (4th Cir.2010);accord Hertzv. Friend,559U.S.77,96(2010);McBurney v.Cuccinelli,616F.3d393,408(4thCir.2010). PlaintiffstatesthattheCourthasfederalquestionjurisdiction overthisclaim pursuantto 28U.S.C.j 1331.Toprovideafederalforum forplaintiffswhoseektovindicatefederalrights, Congresshasconferredonthedistrictcourtsoriginaljurisdictionovercivilactionsthatariseunder theConstimtion,laws,ortreatiesoftheUnited States.28U.S.C.j 1331;ExxonMobilCorp.v. AllapattahServices,Inc.,545U.S.546,552(2005).Further,tmder28U.S.C.j1367(a),district courtsaregranted tçsupplementaljurisdictionovera11otherclaimsthataresorelatedtoclaimsin the action within (the courts') originaljurisdiction thatthey form partof the sam: case or controversy tmderArticle I1IoftheUnited StatesConstitution.'' Section 1367 doesnotcreate an independentcauseofaction.Rather,j 1367allowsacourttoexercisesupplementaljurisdiction overstate1aw claim s,butonly whexetheComplaintalso pleadsrelated federalclaim s. Atbest,Plaintiffs Complaintbdngs a claim forbreach of contractagainst Defendant, which doesnotstate afederalcause ofaction.Thisclaim instead arisestmderM aryland 1aw and m ay be raised in a state courq butcrmnotbe broughtin this Courq absenta basis for federal jurisdiction. As such,the Complaintdoesnotestablish federalquestionjurisdiction tmder28 U.S.C.j 1331. 2 Case 8:22-cv-02143-GJH Document 2 Filed 09/15/22 Page 3 of 3 The Courtalso notesthatthereisno basisfordiversity jurisdiction in thiscase eithkr. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.j 1332,diversity jurisdiction exists when the parties are of diverse citizenshipandthesmountincontroversyexceeds$75,000.SeeStouffkrCorp.v.Breèkenridg'e, 859F.2d 75,76(8th Cir.1988);McDonald v.Patton,240 F.2d424,425-26 (4thCir.1957). As bothpartiesresideinM aryland,thereisnodiversitybetweenthepartiestoconferjurisdictionupon the Court. W ithoutajurisdictionalbasisforsuitin federalcourt,Plaintiffsclaim isfacmally and legally withoutmedt. Such lawsuitsare subjectto dismissalpursuantto the Court'sinherent authority. The federalrulesrequire dism issalanytim e there is a determination thatthere is no jurisdiction.SeeFed.R.Civ.P.12(h)(3)(çtlfthecourtdeterminesatanytimethatitlackssubjectmatterjurisdiction,thecourtmustdismisstheaction.'').Dismissalisappropriatehere,giventhe lackoffederaljurisdiction. Accordingly,itisthisI da %y ofSeptember,2022,bytheUnited StatesDistrictCourtfor theDistrictofM aryland,hereby ORDERED that: 1. The Complaint IS DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; 2. The Clerk IS DIRECTED to M M L acopy ofthisOrderto Plaintiff;and 3. The Clerk SH ALL CLO SE thiscase. ?//ç/C'2* Date GE RG E J.HA ZEL United StatesDistrictJudge

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?