PARADISE TRUCK TIRE SPECIALISTS INC. v. HOFFMAN TIRE CO. INC.

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM & ORDER that Pltf's Complaint is dismissed with prejudice; and Ordered that Pltf's filing fee be returned to Pltf. Signed by Judge Peter G. Sheridan on 5/26/11. (jd, )

CLOSED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

PARADISE TRUCK TIRE SPECIALISTS,
INC.,

Civil Action No.: 11-2657 (PGS)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff,
V.

HOFFMAN TIRE CO., INC.,
Defendant.

SHERIDAN, U.S.DJ.
This Court sua sponte considers dismissing Plaintiff Paradise Truck Tire Specialists, Inc.’s
(“Plaintiff’) complaint (“Plaintiffs Complaint”) for lack of subject matterjurisdiction. A federal

court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court
must dismiss the action.”).

For the reasons set forth below, this Court dismisses Plaintiffs

Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff is a Pennsylvania company. Hoffman Truck Tire Specialists, Inc. (“Defendant”) is
a ew Jersey Company. Defendant allegedly purchased a product from Plaintiff and did not fully

pay for the product. Plaintiff seeks to collect the unpaid remainder ($387.85) of the bill.
A federal complaint generally must include “a short and plain statement of the grounds for
the court’s jurisdiction,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(l). The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that
subject matter jurisdiction exists. chem. Leanian Tank Lines, Inc. v. Aetna (‘as. & Sur. co., 1 77

F.3d 210, 222 n.13 (3d Cir, 1999) (citation omitted). “[Fjederal subject matter jurisdiction must
appear on the face ofthe complaint.” Heilman v. United States, 731 F.2d 1 104, 1 1 11 (3d. Cir. 1984)
(citations omitted).
Plaintiffs Complaint does

not

reveal that subject matter jurisdiction exists. Plaintiff does

not satisfactorily allege that there exists subject matter jurisdiction due to diversity of citizenship
between the parties. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1332. Diversityjurisdiction requires that the opposing parties

be from different states and the amount in controversy rise to a figure greater than $75,000. 28
U.S.C.

§ 1332. Here, Plaintiffand Defendant are from different states, but the amount in controversy

falls short of the monetary requirement. In addition, Plaintiffdoes not contend that a federal question
provides this Court with subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1331. Plaintiffs Complaint

is therefore fatally flawed and is dismissed with prejudice.’
For the reasons set forth above, it is on this 26th day of May, 2011,
ORDERED that Plaintiffs Complaint is dismissed with prejudice; and
ORDERED that Plaintiffs filing fee be returned to Plaintiff.

/

/1

-

/ /

Pc

vs..
PETER G SHERIDAN, U S D J

This Court does not grant Plaintiff the opportunity to amend Plaintiffs Complaint. A court
may deny amendment to a pleading where any such amendment would prove futile. See Lorensz v.
cSXcorp.. 1 F.3d 1406, 1414 (3d Cir, 1993) (citation omitted). Here, this Court is convinced that
Plaintiff cannot re-plead allegations sufficient to demonstrate either diversity jurisdiction or federal
question jurisdiction. As such, amendment would prove futile.