Lee v. Bank of Hawaii et al
Filing
5
ORDER that 4 Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. The Clerk shall file the complaint. The complaint is DISMISSED. Plaintiff shall have 30 days to file an amended complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 7/3/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF: Chief of Inmate Services - MMM)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ROBIN M. LEE,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
BANK OF HAWAII, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)
Case No. 2:14-cv-00161-JAD-GWF
ORDER
Application to Proceed in Forma
Pauperis (#4) and Complaint (#1-1)
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Robin M. Lee’s (“Plaintiff”) Amended
Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (#4), filed on June 30, 2014.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff brings this action in Federal Court pursuant to diversity of citizenship. As the
18
Court understands Plaintiff’s allegations, he brings this suit against Defendants Bank of Hawaii,
19
CEO Peter Ho, and others associated with Bank of Hawaii for wrongfully closing his checking
20
account, which caused his arrest. See Dkt. #1. Plaintiff alleges that around December 2011, he
21
notified a representative at Bank of Hawaii that at least three of his checks were stolen, forged and
22
cashed out of Plaintiff’s account in the amount of $2,800. Id. Plaintiff allegedly filed a police
23
report with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, which he faxed to Bank of Hawaii. Id.
24
Plaintiff asserts that Loss Prevention intervened, and despite an alleged verbal acknowledgment
25
that the signatures on the forged checks did not match Plaintiff’s signature, his money was never
26
refunded. Id. Upon the bank manager’s suggestion, Plaintiff states he opened a Chase banking
27
account in Las Vegas, Nevada on January 12, 2012. Id. Plaintiff then allegedly ordered a transfer
28
in excess of $8,000 from his Bank of Hawaii account into his Chase banking account to cover
1
checks he had written in the amount of $8,675. Id. The checks were returned unpaid. Id. Plaintiff
2
alleges he had $9,000 in his Bank of Hawaii account and called a representative to inquire as to
3
why the transfer did not go through. The representative informed Plaintiff that his checking
4
account had been closed and the remaining balance was sent to Plaintiff. He acknowledges receipt
5
of a letter from Bank of Hawaii stating his account had been closed and receipt of a refund check
6
for $2,400 prior to his request to transfer funds. Id. Plaintiff, however, alleges that as a result of
7
Bank of Hawaii’s actions, he was arrested for two class B felonies punishable by up to 10 years in
8
prison. Id. He is requesting $514,175.00 in damages. Id.
9
DISCUSSION
10
I.
11
Plaintiff filed this instant action and attached a financial affidavit to his application and
Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
12
complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Reviewing Plaintiff’s financial affidavit pursuant to
13
28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court finds that he is unable to pre-pay the filing fee. As a result, Plaintiff's
14
request to proceed in forma pauperis in federal court is granted.
15
II.
16
Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must additionally screen a
Screening the Complaint
17
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Specifically, federal courts are given the authority to
18
dismiss a case if the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which
19
relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff who is
20
immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A complaint, or portion thereof, should be
21
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted “if it appears beyond a doubt
22
that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claims that would entitle him to relief.”
23
Buckey v. Los Angeles, 968 F.2d 791, 794 (9th Cir. 1992). Allegations of a pro se complaint are
24
held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner,
25
404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). When a court dismisses a complaint under § 1915(e), the plaintiff
26
should be given leave to amend the complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it
27
is clear from the face of the complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See
28
Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).
2
1
A.
2
Federal Courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332, federal
Plaintiff’s Complaint
3
district courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions in diversity cases “where the matter in
4
controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000” and where the matter is between “citizens of
5
different states.” Though not specifically plead, Plaintiff appears to be a resident of Las Vegas,
6
Nevada and Defendants appear to be residents of and a business incorporated in Hawaii. Mr. Lee is
7
requesting $514,175.00 in damages. After review of Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court finds Plaintiff
8
has not plead sufficient facts to establish the amount in controversy to grant diversity of citizenship
9
jurisdiction.
10
The Court must look to the legal certainty test regarding the amount in controversy for
11
purposes of determining diversity of citizenship jurisdiction in Federal Court. The legal certainty
12
test was established by the Supreme Court in St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303
13
U.S. 283 (1938). It states that if the Federal Court finds by a legal certainty that the amount in
14
controversy is not met, the court does not have jurisdiction. See St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v.
15
Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288-90 (1938) (finding that if it is legally certain from the face of the
16
pleadings that the plaintiff cannot recover the jurisdictional amount and that the plaintiff’s claim
17
was colorable for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction, then the court shall dismiss the suit for lack
18
of jurisdiction); see also In Jones v. Unknown Employees of Kerrville Bus Line, 281 Fed. App’x
19
386, 387 (5th Cir. 2008) (finding that just because a plaintiff claims a certain amount to meet the
20
amount in controversy for purposes of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, does not mean the court
21
cannot challenge the amount).
22
In Jones, the plaintiff alleged $1,000,000 in damages after the defendant bus company
23
missed its scheduled pick-up time and allegedly left plaintiff exposed in the elements. Id. Plaintiff
24
alleged a claim of mental anguish to meet the amount in controversy, however, the court found that
25
the plaintiff failed to plead facts to justify his claim. Furthermore, in Hot-Hed v. Safe House
26
Habitats, Ltd., 2007 WL 556862 (S.D. Tex. 2007), the court held that plaintiff’s mere request for
27
punitive damages was not necessarily enough to make it facially apparent that the jurisdictional
28
amount was met absent some showing that the plaintiff may recover punitive damages.
3
1
Here, Plaintiff alleges a claim, presumably for breach of contract, calculating damages in the
2
amount of $14,175.00. Plaintiff’s alleged damages are clearly insufficient to state a claim for
3
federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. Plaintiff then goes on to aver a claim for
4
punitive damages in the amount of $500,000. Similar to Jones, Plaintiff’s request for punitive
5
damages meets the amount in controversy limit, however, he failed to plead facts to establish the
6
potential of an award for punitive damages. In Hawaii, punitive damages may be awarded only in
7
cases where the wrongdoer has acted wantonly or oppressively with such malice as implies a spirit
8
of mischief or criminal indifference to civil obligations. See Kang v. Harrington, 587 P.2d 285,
9
291 (Haw. 1978); see also Masaki v. Gen. Motors Corp., 780 P.2d 10, 82 (Haw. 1989). Plaintiff
10
failed to allege that the Defendants acted in a wantonly or oppressive manner that would justify
11
incurring an award of punitive damages. Furthermore, if Nevada law governs this action, its law
12
does not permit punitive damages for tortious breach of contract. See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 42.005; see
13
also Clark v. Lubritz, 944 P.2d 861 (Nev. 1997).
14
The Court therefore finds that it is legally certain from the face of the pleadings that
15
Plaintiff cannot recover the jurisdictional amount and that Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages is
16
not sufficient for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction. The Court will grant Plaintiff leave to
17
amend his Complaint in accordance with the above discussion. In the event Plaintiff elects to
18
proceed in this matter by filing an amended complaint, he is informed that the Court cannot refer to
19
a prior pleading to make his amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-1 requires that an
20
amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as
21
a general rule, an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375
22
F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). If Plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint, each claim and the
23
involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. Accordingly,
24
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis is
25
granted. Plaintiff shall not be required to pay an initial partial filing fee. However, even if this
26
action is dismissed, the full filing fee must still be paid pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
27
28
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the movant herein is permitted to maintain this action
to conclusion without the necessity of prepayment of any additional fees or costs or the giving of
4
1
security therefor. This Order granting forma pauperis status shall not extend to the issuance of
2
subpoenas at government expense.
3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2), the Federal
4
Detention Center Honolulu shall pay to the Clerk of the United States District Court, District of
5
Nevada, 20% of the preceding month’s deposits to Plaintiff’s account (inmate #47043-048), in the
6
months that the account exceeds $10.00, until the full $350 filing fee has been paid for this action.
7
The Clerk of the Court shall send a copy of this Order to the Finance Division of the Clerk’s Office.
8
The Clerk shall also send a copy of this Order to the attention of the Chief of Inmate Services for
9
the Federal Detention Center, 351 Elliott Street, Honolulu, HI 96819.
10
11
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall file Plaintiff’s Complaint
(#1-1).
12
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, without prejudice,
13
for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days from the date this order is entered to file
14
an amended complaint curing the deficiencies discussed above. Failure to do so may result in
15
Plaintiff’s claim being dismissed for failing to comply with the Court’s order pursuant to Rule
16
41(b).
17
DATED this 3rd day of July, 2014.
18
19
20
______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
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?