Alemarah v. General Motors LLC, f/k/a General Motors Company, a Delaware limited liability company et al
Filing
7
OPINION and ORDER Denying Plaintiff's request for a Refund of the Filing Fee 5 . Signed by District Judge Bernard A. Friedman. (JCur)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
NOSOUD ALEMARAH,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 18-CV-11720
vs.
HON. BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN
GENERAL MOTORS LLC and
SUSAN SCHNEIDER,
Defendants.
__________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR A REFUND OF THE FILING FEE
This matter is presently before the Court on plaintiff’s request for a refund of the
filing fee [docket entry 5]. For the reasons stated below, this request is denied.
Plaintiff has brought this employment discrimination action against her former
employer and former supervisor. Shortly after the complaint was filed, the Court issued the
following order:
This is an employment discrimination action in which
plaintiff alleges that she was subjected to a hostile work environment,
and that she was eventually discharged, because of her gender,
religion, and race, and in retaliation for complaining to management
about workplace harassment. While this Court’s jurisdiction allegedly
is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the complaint fails to allege the states
of which defendants are citizens. Regarding the individual defendant,
the complaint alleges only that she “was Plaintiff’s Manager when
she worked for the Defendant Company.” Compl. ¶ 2. Regarding
defendant General Motors, the complaint alleges only that it is “a
foreign corporation.” Id. ¶ 4. However, a corporation is a citizen both
of the state where is was incorporated and the state where it has its
principal place of business, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), and so far as
the Court is aware, General Motors has its principal place of business
in Detroit. See, e.g., General Motors LLC v. Clark-Cutler-McDermott
Co., No. 16-cv-12246 (E.D. Mich.) (ECF No. 1, Pg ID 4: “Plaintiff
is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of
business in Detroit, Michigan.”); Saab Auto. AB v. Gen. Motors Co.,
953 F. Supp. 2d 782, 784 (E.D. Mich. 2013).
As plaintiff alleges that she is a “resident of Wayne County
Michigan,” Compl. ¶ 4, and therefore a citizen of the State of
Michigan, this Court lacks diversity jurisdiction if either of the
defendants is also a citizen of Michigan because “diversity must be
‘complete,’ i.e., all parties on plaintiffs’ side must be diverse from all
parties on defendants’ side.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs.,
Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 584–85 (2005). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff show cause within ten days of
the date of this order why the Court should not dismiss the complaint
for its failure to allege facts showing that this Court may exercise
subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff may respond to this order by
filing an amended complaint that sufficiently alleges the states of
which all parties are citizens. If plaintiff fails to show, by amendment
of the complaint or otherwise, that this Court may exercise subject
matter jurisdiction, the Court shall dismiss the complaint pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
Alemarah v. Gen. Motors LLC, No. 18-11720 (E.D. Mich. 2018) (show cause order issued June 4,
2018).
In response to this order, plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed her complaint without
prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Plaintiff indicates that “Defense Counsel for
GENERAL MOTORS LLC stated he would remove Plaintiffs [sic] case to Federal Court if Plaintiff
filed in State Court” and that “Plaintiff therefore filed her lawsuit in Federal Court to prevent it from
having to be removed to Federal Court.” Withdrawal of Pl.’s Compl. at 2. Plaintiff further indicates
that she intends to file a complaint in state court and that she “also filed a complaint with the EEOC
and when/if she receives her Right to Sue letter she will be filing her federal claims in this court.”
Id. at 3.
Plaintiff requests that the Court return the $400 filing fee she paid when she filed the
instant complaint. The Court has reviewed the cases plaintiff has cited, in which the Court ordered
2
a refund of the filing fee (or of the partial filing fee plaintiff had paid),1 but does not find that they
support such a request in the present case for three reasons. First, none of these cases cite any
statutory or regulatory authority that would permit the Court to refund the filing fee. Bell cites
another district court order, Schweitzer v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, No. CIV. 3:CV-06-1940, 2006
WL 3199154 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 3, 2006), which cites no authority. Goode, McCarthy, and Ahmad cite
no authority. And Spearman cites Ahmad.
Second, in all of the cited cases the plaintiffs were proceeding pro se and plainly did
not know how to draft a proper complaint. The Court expects better from members of the bar.
Third, in two of the five cases (Bell and Spearman), the plaintiffs claimed financial
hardship. In Bell, the pro se prisoner plaintiff was unable to pay the $3 initial filing fee and claimed
in his motion for voluntary dismissal that the monthly deduction from his prison account to pay the
balance of the filing fee caused him and his family “undue hardship.” In Spearman, the pro se
prisoner plaintiff had a negative balance in his prisoner trust account, i.e., no funds at all. In the
present case, plaintiff makes no such claim of financial hardship. Indeed, she alleges that until
recently she was earning a $105,000 annual salary. Compl. ¶ 84.
In short, plaintiff offers no persuasive authority, and points to no compelling
circumstances, which would warrant a refund of the $400 filing fee. The complaint was filed by
counsel, who should know that it is improper to file a complaint in a court that lacks subject matter
jurisdiction, on behalf of a client who does not claim, and appears not to suffer, financial hardship.
1
Plaintiff cites Bell v. Wayne Cty. Clerk, No. CIV. 07-13195, 2008 WL 2026125 (E.D.
Mich. May 12, 2008); Goode v. Muhammad, No. 18-10314, 2018 WL 705153 (E.D. Mich. Feb.
5, 2018); Spearman v. Michigan, No. 2:17-CV-12805, 2017 WL 6371984 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 13,
2017); McCarthy v. Davis, No. 11-15381, 2011 WL 6780723 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 27, 2011); and
Ahmad v. Grant, No. 10-12644, 2010 WL 2756499 (E.D. Mich. July 12, 2010).
3
Moreover, counsel must have been aware of the public costs incurred by the filing of a complaint,
even if it is withdrawn, as in this case, within approximately one week after filing. In this short
period of time, Clerk’s Office personnel had to issue a summons for each defendant, and the judge’s
staff, in consultation with the judge and with his approval, had to review the complaint and draft and
issue the show-cause order, review plaintiff’s response and, now, consider and decide plaintiff’s
request for a refund. These are all services which are paid for, in part, by the filing fee.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for a refund of the filing fee is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s complaint is deemed withdrawn, without
prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i).
Dated: June 12, 2018
Detroit, Michigan
s/Bernard A. Friedman
BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and
any unrepresented parties via the Court's ECF System to their respective email or First Class
U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on June 12, 2018.
s/Johnetta M. Curry-Williams
Case Manager
4
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?