Lifchits v. Integon National Insurance Co. et al

Filing 27

Judge Richard G. Stearns: ORDER entered denying as moot 26 Motion for Judgment. (PSSA, 4)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-11348-RGS
PAVEL LIFCHITS
v.
INTEGON NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.
ORDER
December 4, 2018
Plaintiff Pavel Lifchits of Framingham, Massachusetts, filed a pro se
complaint on June 27, 2018 seeking $4,000 for property damage sustained
in an April 9, 2018 car accident in New York. See Docket No. 1. By Electronic
Order dated November 30, 2018, the motions to dismiss were allowed.
Although there is complete diversity among the parties, the jurisdictional
threshold of $75,000 was not plausibly alleged. See Docket No. 23. The
dismissal was without prejudice to Plaintiff refiling in the appropriate state
court. Id.
Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s pro se motion titled “motion about
Judgment in the favor of the Plaintiff on the basis of the untimely submission
the Defendant’s answer.” See Docket No. 26. Plaintiff complains, among
other things, that he “did not receive any paper from lawyers before” and
“assumed that [he would] receive the answer through E-mail.” Plaintiff

contends, as he has in his earlier filings, that the Defendants failed to file
timely answers to the complaint.
Regardless of the parties’ pleadings, “federal courts are of limited
jurisdiction. They cannot act in the absence of subject matter jurisdiction,
and they have a sua sponte duty to confirm the existence of jurisdiction in
the face of apparent jurisdictional defects.” United States v. Univ. of Mass.,
Worcester, 812 F.3d 35, 44 (1st Cir. 2016).

Here, the complaint was

dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby ORDERED that:

Plaintiff’s Motion

(Docket No. 26) for Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff is DENIED as MOOT
and this case remains closed.

SO ORDERED.
/s/ Richard G. Stearns
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

2