Black v. Citibank et al

Filing 18

ORDER DISMISSING CASE for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (JMcC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Kimberly Ann Black,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 13-12319

Citibank, et al.,

Honorable Sean F. Cox

Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
Acting pro se, on May 24, 2013, Plaintiff Kimberly Ann Black filed this suit against
multiple defendants.
“[F]ederal courts have an independent obligation to investigate and police the boundaries
of their own jurisdiction.” Douglas v. E.F. Baldwin & Assocs., Inc., 150 F.3d 604, 607 (6th Cir.
1998). Having reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court was not persuaded that Plaintiff has
adequately alleged the necessary facts to establish the existence of subject matter jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Thereafter, Counsel entered an appearance on behalf of Plaintiff. On June 18, 2013,
Counsel for Plaintiff filed a response to the Show Cause Order, indicating that Plaintiff intends
to file an Amended Complaint, and asking the Court to vacate the Show Cause Order. In an
Order issued on June 19, 2013 (Docket Entry No. 16), this Court ordered as follows:

1

The Court hereby ORDERS that if Plaintiff wishes to file an Amended
Complaint, she shall file her Amended Complaint no later than June 30, 2013. If
Plaintiff files an Amended Complaint by that date, this Court will make a
determination as to subject matter jurisdiction based on the Amended Complaint
filed by Plaintiff.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff does not file an Amended
Complaint by that date, this Court will make a determination regarding subject
matter jurisdiction based upon Plaintiff’s original complaint.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the time for Defendants to file their first
responsive pleading shall be extended until fourteen (14) days after this Court has
resolved the jurisdictional issue in this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
(Id. at 2) (bolding in original; italics added for emphasis).
On July 1, 2013, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint. (Docket Entry No. 17).
Having reviewed Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, this Court concludes that it lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over this action.
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint asserts that this Court has diversity jurisdiction over
this action. (See First Am. Compl. at ¶ 1). Under 28 U.S.C. §1332(a), the two requirements for
diversity jurisdiction are: 1) that the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000,
exclusive of interest and costs, and 2) that complete diversity of citizenship exists between the
disputing parties. Complete diversity means that no plaintiff is a citizen of the same state as any
defendant. Glancy v. Taubaun Ctrs, Inc., 313 F.3d 656, 664 (6th Cir. 2004).
Here, Plaintiff’s complaint reflects that complete diversity does not exist because
Plaintiff is a citizen of Michigan (see First Am. Compl. at ¶ 4) and so are two of the named
Defendants. (See First Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 9 & 13).1
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

1

In addition, there are no federal claims in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. This
Court therefore does not have federal question jurisdiction over this action.
2

FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S/Sean F. Cox
Sean F. Cox
United States District Judge
Dated: July 1, 2013
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on July
1, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/Jennifer McCoy
Case Manager

3