Skillman v. General Steel Corporation

Filing 6

Chief Judge Mark L. Wolf: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: it is hereby Ordered that this action is DISMISSED in its entirety for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.(PSSA, 1)

Skillman v. General Steel Corporation

Doc. 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS MARJORIE A. SKILLMAN, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL STEEL SETTLEMENT FUND, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-11472-MLW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER WOLF, D.J. I. INTRODUCTION On August 9, 2010, a plaintiff Marjorie Complaint Fund, as A. Skillman the November 2, 2010

("Skillman"), defendant,

filed

self-prepared Settlement

against class

General

Steel

action

administrators for General Steel Corporation.

Skillman sought

recision of a Settlement and Release Form made in connection with a class action Settlement Agreement. coherent, duress, this court and/or presumed that While the Complaint was not Skillman of alleged mistake, with

fraud,

unconscionability

the

contract

General Steel Corporation for building materials. On October 5, 2010, this court issued a Memorandum and Order (Docket No. 4) directing Skillman to demonstrate within 35 days why this action should not be dismissed for lack of either diversity jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction, or, in the

alternative, Skillman was directed to file an Amended Complaint setting forth the basis for subject matter jurisdiction as well as plausible claims in accordance with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Memorandum and Order addressed in detail,

Dockets.Justia.com

inter alia, the failure of Skillman to set forth facts upon which this court could find the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.00 in order to invoke the diversity jurisdiction of this court, and the failure of Skillman to set forth a bona fide federal claim under the Truth in Lending Act or any other federal law. In response to the Memorandum and Order, on October 15, 2010, Skillman filed a Letter (Docket No. 5). As with the Complaint, For

Skillman's pleading is not entirely coherent nor organized.

reasons unknown, she seeks to distinguish this case from another civil action pending in which she asserts claims against a

pawnbroker for melting down her jewelry. Essentially, however, her Letter simply reiterates the claims contained in her Complaint. She clarifies that this action involves a claim for damages in the amount of $15,971.18 excluding interest, and seeks to repay the Bank of America money loaned to her which she used toward her contract with General Steel Corporation for building materials. Skillman again states that there was a class action settlement with General Steel Corporation, handled by the General Steel Settlement Fund, and she concedes that, in fact, she received distributions of settlement funds. Skillman claims her. While not entirely clear, it appears that these distributions that were not enough to

that She

compensate

claims

General

Steel

Corporation

misrepresented the facts with respect to the delivered parts of the steel building, and that this false information was considered in generating the settlement agreement.

2

Skillman expressly contends that her cause of action against General Steel Corporation is "an intentional tort or tort with consideration from the case fact." Letter (Docket No. 5 at 1).

More specifically, she states that: "[t]he legal cause of action is whether the Tort or wrong facts in the case were a tort or whether the wrong was an intentional tort regarding delivery of parts of the steel building to Ms. Skillman by the General Steel Corporation also known as doing the business for the General Steel Settlement Fund." II. Id. at 3.

DISCUSSION Without reiterating the analysis of the court's lack of

subject matter jurisdiction contained in the earlier Memorandum and Order, the court finds that Skillman has failed to meet her burden to demonstrate that this court has subject matter jurisdiction over her claims for damages against General Steel Corporation. First,

she does not assert a federal cause of action that would give rise to the federal question jurisdiction of this court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331; rather, she asserts a state law cause of action based on tort law. Second, she fails to set forth sufficient facts from

which this court could reasonably infer that, even if there was diversity of citizenship between the parties, the amount in

controversy exceeds $75,000.00. Skillman asserts the amount in

Indeed, throughout her Letter, controversy is far less --

$15,971.18.

Even under a broad reading of the pleadings, this

court cannot find that it has diversity jurisdiction under 28

3

U.S.C. § 1332. In light of this, the court will DISMISS this action in its entirety. III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Based on the foregoing, it is hereby Ordered that this action is DISMISSED in its entirety for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

SO ORDERED. /s/ Mark L. Wolf UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4