Tucker v. Credit Corp Solutions, Inc et al
Filing
5
OPINION and ORDER Granting Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs and Dismissing Complaint (ECF No. 2 ). Signed by District Judge Jonathan J.C. Grey. (SOso)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
BRANDON TUCKER,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 24-13146
Hon. Jonathan J.C. Grey
CREDIT CORP SOLUTIONS, INC. et al.
a/k/a LENDINGCLUB CORPORATION,
a/k/a WEBBANK
Defendants.
______________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO
PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS AND
DISMISSING COMPLAINT (ECF No. 2)
Pro se plaintiff Brandon Tucker filed this case and an application
to proceed without prepaying costs and fees on November 26, 2024. (ECF
Nos. 1, 2.) In his complaint, Tucker brings claims against Defendants
Credit Corp Solutions, Inc. (“Credit Corp”), Richard Roosen, Paul E.
Varchetti, and Lynn Oliver, PLLC (“Lynn”) alleging fraud. (ECF No. 1.)
I.
Factual Background
Tucker alleges that on or around July 25, 2022 the defendants
conspired to enter a default judgment against him based on a fraudulent
online loan contract in Wayne County Third Circuit Court. (Id. at
PageID.5.) Tucker claims that he has been a consistent resident of
Oakland County since 2014, yet defendants intentionally sent all court
correspondences to a Detroit address where he did not physically live.
(Id.) Tucker further alleges that, due to defendants’ lack of disclosure, he
suffered an undefined, ongoing injury from August 2022 to May 2024 and
was impeded from determining who was at fault and means of relief.
(Id.) Tucker claims Roosen was listed as the attorney for Credit Corp.
(Id.) He also claims he sent the defendants several notarized affidavits
from March 12, 2024 until April 2, 2024 informing them of his rights
under the contract. (Id.) Tucker has attached the alleged affidavits that
he sent to defendants to his complaint, and he claims defendants’
nonresponse to his letters is proof that they admit to “unjust enrichment,
tort feasor [sic], fraud, and mail fraud.” (Id.)
For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Tucker’s application
to proceed without prepaying fees and costs and DISMISSES the
complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
II.
Legal Standards
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court may allow a person to proceed
without prepayment of fees or costs, i.e., in forma pauperis. However, the
2
Court is required to review each case for summary dismissal if the action
is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Further, the Court can only hear cases if it has subject-matter
jurisdiction over the claims. The Court can dismiss a complaint at any
time on its own if it finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Generally, the Court can only
hear cases dealing with federal questions, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or that meet
the requirements for diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Federal district courts have diversity jurisdiction in civil cases
“where the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000,
exclusive of interests and costs, and is between . . . citizens of different
States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). “Under [28 U.S.C. § 1332], there must be
complete diversity such that no plaintiff is a citizen of the same state as
any defendant.” V & M Star, LP v. Centimark Corp., 596 F.3d 354, 355
(6th Cir. 2010). “In a diversity action, the plaintiff must state all parties’
citizenships such that the existence of complete diversity can be
confirmed.” Washington v. Sulzer Orthopedics, Inc., 76 F. App’x 644, 645–
3
646 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Evanston
Ins. Co. v. Hous. Auth. of Somerset, 867 F.3d 653, 656 (6th Cir. 2017) (“A
federal court has [diversity] jurisdiction only if complete diversity
exists”).
III. Analysis
The Court finds that Tucker is unable to pay the filing fee (see ECF
No. 2) and GRANTS his application to proceed in forma pauperis under
28 U.S.C. § 1915. However, the Court does not have jurisdiction over
Tucker’s claims. Generally, in order to maintain a suit in federal court
for state law claims under diversity jurisdiction, the plaintiff must allege
that there is complete diversity of citizenship between the plaintiff and
the defendants. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Here, based on the allegations in the
complaint, there is no diversity of citizenship as both Tucker and Roosen
are citizens of Michigan. Additionally, the citizenship of both Varchetti
and Lynn are undisclosed.
IV.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Tucker’s application
to
proceed
without
prepaying
and
DISMISSES
PREJUDICE this action against the defendants.
4
WITHOUT
SO ORDERED.
s/Jonathan J.C. Grey
Jonathan J.C. Grey
United States District Judge
Dated: January 27, 2025
5
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 January 27, 2025.
s/ S. Osorio
Sandra Osorio
Case Manager
6
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?