LUCIDO v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. et al

Filing 17

OPINION AND ORDER denying as moot 11 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction ; granting 12 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge William H. Walls on 1/9/18. (sr, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT Of NEW JERSEY

MARY LUCIDO,
Plaintiff,
OPINION AND ORDER
V.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., SYED M.
AHMED, AMERICAN TRANSIT
INSURANCE COMPANY, JOHN DOE (110), and ABC CORP. (1—1 0).

Civ. No. 17-6361 (WHW-CLW)

Defendants.

Walls. Senior District Judge
Pending before the Court are two motions to dismiss. In the first, defendant American
Transit Insurance Company (“American Transit”) moves to dismiss under federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction. ECF No. 11. In the second, defendants
American Transit and Syed M. Ahmed request dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 12. Decided without oral argument under Rule 78, the motion to
dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) is granted, and it is unnecessary for the Court to consider American
Transit’s Rule 12(b)(2) motion, which the Court denies as moot.
Plaintiff Mary Lucido, a New Jersey resident, filed this personal-injury action on August
23, 2017. Her complaint alleges that Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”) is a Delaware
corporation doing business in New York, Ahmed is a New Jersey resident, and American Transit
is a New York corporation doing business in New York. Compi. at 2. It contains no allegations
regarding John Doe(s)’ s or ABC Corp(s). ‘s residencies or citizenships. The gravamen of

1

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Lucido’s complaint is that Ahmed, while driving for Uber in New York City, ran over Lucido’s
ankle and foot as Lucido attempted to enter his vehicle. Id.
Under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1332, the district courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over civil

actions between citizens of different states where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or
value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. If a court determines at any time that it lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); see Frett—
Smith v. Vanterpool, 511 F.3d 396, 398 n.3 (3d Cir. 2008).
In a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, “the Court is free to weigh the evidence and satisfy itself
whether it has power to hear the case.” Carpet Group Int’l v. Oriental Rug Imp. Ass ‘n, Inc., 227
F.3d 62, 69 (3d Cir. 2000) (citing Mortensen v. first fed. Say. & Loan Ass ‘ii, 549 F.2d 884, 891
(3d Cir. 1977)). The plaintiff must not only demonstrate that a controversy existed at the time it
filed suit, but that it continues to exist throughout the litigation. Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 975
F.2d 964, 974 (3d Cir. 1992).
American Transit and Ahmed contend that because both Lucido and Ahmed are New
Jersey residents, there is no diversity of citizenship and, consequently, the Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction. Lucido does not dispute that both she and Ahmed reside in New Jersey. See
ECF No. 13 at 1. “A case falls within the federal district court’s ‘original’ diversity ‘jurisdiction’
only if diversity of citizenship among the parties is complete, i.e., only if there is no plaintiff and
no defendant who are citizens of the same State.” Wisconsin Dept. of Corrections v. Schacht, 524
U.S. 381, 388 (1992). Here, because plaintiff Lucido and defendant Ahmed are New Jersey
residents, there is not complete diversity of citizenship. It follows that the Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over their dispute, and it is hereby

2

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
ORDERED that defendants American Transit’s and Syed M. Ahmed’s motion to dismiss
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, ECF No. 12, is granted; and it is further
ORDERED that defendant American Transit’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction, ECF No. 11, is denied as moot.

DATE:3
amH.Ws
Senior United S es District Court Judge

3