LERNER v. SCHEFREN et al

Filing 5

OPINION. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 7/6/11. (jd, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
____________________________________
:
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
HARVEY SCHEFREN et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
____________________________________:
ROGET LERNER,

Civil Action No. 11-3297 (SRC)

OPINION

CHESLER, U.S.D.J.
This matter comes before the Court pursuant to the Order To Show Cause of
June 15, 2011 directing Plaintiff Roget Lerner to show cause in writing why this action should
not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. For the reasons set forth below, this
Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
On June 8, 2011, Plaintiff, represented by counsel, filed a Complaint which asserted
subject matter jurisdiction based on the presence of a federal question, contending that
Defendants had violated Plaintiff’s rights under the United States Constitution. This Court
examined the Complaint and, unable to discern in the Complaint any claims for any violations of
any rights under the United States Constitution, Ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the action
should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff responded to the Order to Show Cause by submitting an Amended Complaint
with a brief cover letter.

The Amended Complaint no longer asserts federal question jurisdiction, nor does it
contend that Defendants have violated Plaintiff’s Constitutional rights. Instead, it asserts that
this Court’s jurisdiction is based upon diversity of citizenship. (Am. Compl. 2.) The Amended
Complaint alleges that Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of New York, while two Defendants are
citizens of the State of New York, and two Defendants are citizens of the State of New Jersey.
(Id. at 2.)
Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity: the citizenship of every plaintiff must
be different from the citizenship of every defendant. Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68
(1996). This Court finds that the Complaint does not allege complete diversity – since Plaintiff
and at least one Defendant are alleged to be citizens of New York – and does not support subject
matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship.
Under Third Circuit law, this Court has an obligation to satisfy itself that it has subject
matter jurisdiction over a case and to address the issue sua sponte.1 This Court finds no basis in
the Complaint to support subject matter jurisdiction. This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
to hear this case, and it will be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).

s/ Stanley R. Chesler
Stanley R. Chesler, U.S.D.J.
Dated: July 6, 2011

1

Desi's Pizza, Inc. v. City of Wilkes-Barre, 321 F.3d 411, 420 (3d Cir.2003) (citing
Bracken v. Matgouranis, 296 F.3d 160, 162 (3d Cir.2002)).
2