Haase v. AGS Capital et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiffs Complaint (Filing No. 1 ) is dismissed without prejudice because this court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction; A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum and Order; Plaintiffs Motion to D ismiss (Filing No. 8 ), construed as a motion to withdraw Plaintiffs Motion for In Camera Hearing, is granted. Plaintiffs Motion for In Camera Hearing (Filing No. 7 ) is denied; and Plaintiffs Motion to File Under Seal (Filing No. 9 ) is granted. Filing No. 10 shall remain sealed. Ordered by Judge Laurie Smith Camp. (Copy mailed/e-mailed to pro se party)(MKR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
RONALD HAASE,
Plaintiff,
v.
AGS CAPITAL, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 8:11CV236

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on its own motion. On July 15, 2011, the court
entered a Memorandum and Order stating its concerns regarding whether subject-matter
jurisdiction in this court is proper. (Filing No. 6.) The court permitted Plaintiff the
opportunity “to file sufficient evidence with the court showing that the amount in controversy
is greater than $75,000.00, the jurisdictional amount.” (Id. at CM/ECF p. 4.) On August
3, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Sealed Affidavit in response to the court’s July 15, 2011,
Memorandum and Order. (Filing No. 10.)
In his Complaint, the only specific reference to damages is an allegation that
Defendants owe Plaintiff “expenses and wages incurred of $5,892.99.” (Filing No. 1 at
CM/ECF p. 6.) In his Affidavit, Plaintiff alleges that he sustained additional “ambulance”
and hospitalization expenses of $6,215.00 as a result of Defendant’s conduct. (Filing No.
10.) Other than these two amounts, Plaintiff states only that he “has been educated at
Harvard and Oxford with an MBA and other Master’s degrees from Stanford. He has lost
work and had his reputation slandered by defendants actions impacting his earnings to an
amount greater than $75,000.00.” (Id.) However, Plaintiff has not submitted any support
for this claim, or submitted any evidence, relating to the amount in controversy
requirement. Rather, Plaintiff devotes the remainder of his affidavit to claims regarding

Defendant’s relationship to the “Church of Scientology” and “L. Ron Hubbard.” (Id.)
Indeed, there is nothing in Plaintiff’s response showing that “the amount alleged is
legitimate.” Trimble v. Asarco, Inc., 232 F.3d 946, 959-60 (8th Cir. 2000) (quotation
omitted) (abrogated on other grounds by Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545
U.S. 546 (2005)). The court gave Plaintiff the opportunity to show that subject-matter
jurisdiction in this court is proper, but Plaintiff has not done so. For these reasons, and for
the reasons set forth in the court’s July 15, 2011, Memorandum and Order, this matter is
dismissed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff’s Complaint (Filing No. 1) is dismissed without prejudice because
this court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction;

2.

A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum
and Order;

3.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss (Filing No. 8), construed as a motion to withdraw
Plaintiff’s Motion for In Camera Hearing, is granted. Plaintiff’s Motion for In
Camera Hearing (Filing No. 7) is denied; and

4.

Plaintiff’s Motion to File Under Seal (Filing No. 9) is granted. Filing No. 10
shall remain sealed.

DATED this 3rd day of October, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
s/Laurie Smith Camp
United States District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S.
District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or
guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web sites.
Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites.
The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink.
Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does
not affect the opinion of the court.
2