Shaw et al v. Sikeston, City of et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER..IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed.R.Civ.P.12(h)(3).. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 5/7/18. (MRS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
MARTIN and CHRISTINA SHAW,
d/b/a as C & M TAXI,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF SIKESTON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:18-CV-52 ACL

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court sua sponte. On March 16, 2018, the Court ordered
plaintiffs to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. Plaintiffs have failed to respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause. For the
reasons outlined below, the Court will dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
Discussion
Plaintiffs allege that they run a business known as C&M Taxi in the city of Sikeston,
Missouri. They claim that defendant Charles Leible Toolz used a photo of their vehicle without
their consent in its advertising materials. Plaintiffs further contend that defendant, the city of
Sikeston, has passed an ordinance singling out taxi drivers requiring background checks on
drivers. Plaintiffs believe that this is discriminatory with regard to who they can employ.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. The Court has jurisdiction to hear cases
involving the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and the
Court can hear cases where diversity jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Because the complaint did not allege a basis for this Court’s jurisdiction, the Court, on
March 16, 2018, required plaintiffs to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs failed to respond to the Court’s Order to Show
Cause, and their time for doing so has long passed.
After reviewing plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety, the Court finds once again that the
instant action does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, so
federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is inapplicable. Additionally, there is
no indication in the complaint that diversity jurisdiction exists because plaintiffs and defendants
reside in the same state and the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000. As a result, this
action will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. See Fed.R.Civ.P.12(h)(3).
A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 7th day of May, 2018.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2