Kingsley v. BMW of North America, LLC et al

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, granting Pltff's 3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 USC sec. 1915(a). For the reasons discussed below, pltff is granted 30 days leave to file an amended complaint. All further proceedings sh all be stayed until the expiration of the time granted to file an amended complaint or until an amended complaint is filed, whichever occurs first. If pltff fails to file an amended complaint, judgment dismissing this action without prejudice to its refiling in a court of appropriate jurisdiction shall be entered. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 USC sec. 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. (Ordered by Judge Eric N. Vitaliano on 6/30/12) c/m (Galeano, Sonia)

\ \ fj
~~

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

I':A~!~!:'~~~-CT-~~~~"'-~~ ~~
\~
1
*

SONJA KINGSLEY,

Plaintiff,

JUL \ 0

20\~\

iROOKI..YN OfFICE

-against-

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER
12-CV-3097 (ENV)

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC; LUDWIG
WILLISCH,
Defendants.

----------------------------------------------------------------]{
VITALIANO, United States District Judge.

Plaintiff Sonja Kingsley filed this prose action on June 18,2012 "for fraud and
endangering the safety of plaintiff ... with the unsafe manufacturing of her 2004 Mini Cooper S
vehicle." Compl. at I. The Court grants plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). For the reasons discussed below, plaintiff is granted 30 days leave to file
an amended complaint.
BACKGROUND

Plaintiff owns a 2004 Mini Cooper S automobile manufactured by defendant BMW of
North America ("BMW"). Plaintiff states that she owned this vehicle for appro]{imately one year
when "the transmission went out." Compl. at 2. Plaintiff alleges that this and other first
generation Mini Cooper models are prone to, inter alia, premature transmission failure. Compl. at
3. Specifically, plaintiff states that "these transmissions cannot be repaired, they have to be totally
replaced at the price of$7,000- 10,000, according to which BMW dealer a customer goes to." Id.
For her currently-owned Mini Cooper plaintiff states that "BMW quoted her a repair price of
$8,000 for a new transmission and $3,700 for a new clutch (if the clutch is needed) [and] [t]his is
I

more that the current value ofthe car which according to the Kelly Blue Book is about $7,000."
Id. Therefore, plaintiff states that "many Cooper owners are being stuck with a repair bill that is
about one fourth the value of their car while they are still making monthly payment [of] more that
the value of their car, such as the plaintiff in this action." Compl. at 3. Plaintiff"still owes about
$5,550 to the finance company and regardless of the fact that she cannot drive the car, she is still
obligated to pay the sum of $300 a month to the finance company." I d. In addition, plaintiff
alleges that she previously owned another Mini Cooper automobile "in which the steering
mechanism in that car went out (another very well know defect in first generation Mini Coopers)
that cost her around $3,000 to fix." Compl. at 2. Plaintiff seeks $600,000 in damages. Compl. at
I.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards than pleadings drafted by attorneys
and the Court is required to read the plaintiffs prose complaint liberally and interpret it as raising
the strongest arguments it suggests. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007); Hughes v. Rowe, 449
U.S. 5, 9 (1980); Sealed Plaintiffv. Sealed Defendant #1, 537 F.3d 185, 191-93 (2d Cir. 2008).
Moreover, at the pleadings stage of the proceeding, the Court must assume the truth of"all wellpleaded, non-conclusory factual allegations" in the complaint. Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum
Co., 621 F.3d 111, 123 (2d Cir. 2010) (citing Ashcroft v. IgbaL 556 U.S. 662,678-79 (2009)). A
complaint must plead sufficient facts to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell
At!. Com. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).

2

DISCUSSION
Federal courts are courts oflimited jurisdiction and may not preside over cases if they lack
subject matter jurisdiction. Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986):
Lyndonville Sav. Bank & Trust Co. v. Lussier,211 F.3d 697,700-01 (2d Cir. 2000). Lack of
subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be raised at any time by any party or by the
Court sua sponte. Bender, 475 U.S. at 541. The basic statutory grants of subject matter
jurisdiction are contained in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Arbaugh v. Y & H Cor,p., 546 U.S. 500,
513 (2006). Section 1331 provides federal question jurisdiction and § 1332 provides jurisdiction
based on diversity of citizenship. Id. Moreover, "[t]he party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the
burden of establishing that jurisdiction exists." Conyers v. Rossides, 558 F.3d 137, 143 (2d Cir.
2009) (quoting Sharkey v. Quarantine, 541 F.3d 75, 82 (2d Cir. 2008)) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
"A plaintiff properly invokes§ 1331 jurisdiction when [she] pleads a colorable claim
'arising under' the Constitution or laws of the United States." Arbaugh, 546 U.S. at 513 (citing
Bell v. Hood, 327U.S. 678,681-85 (1946)). A plaintiff properly invokes§ 1332jurisdiction when
she presents a claim between parties of diverse citizenship that exceeds the required jurisdictional
amount, currently $75,000. Id. (citing§ 1332(a)). Plaintiffs complaint fails to present a federal
question. Furthermore, plaintiff does not establish that this Court has diversity jurisdiction over
her complaint. Complete diversity appears to exist among the parties, as plaintiff states that she
resides in Staten Island, New York and defendants are located in New Jersey. Compl. at I.
Nevertheless, "[a] party invoking the jurisdiction ofthe federal court has the burden of proving
that it appears to a 'reasonable probability' that the claim is in excess of the statutory jurisdictional
amount." Chase Manhattan Bank. N.A. v. Am. Nat'! Bank and Trust Co. of Chicago, 93 F.3d
1064, 1070 (2d Cir. 1996) (quoting Tongkook Am .. Inc. v. Shipton Sportswear Co., 14 F.3d 781,
3

784 (2d Cir. 1994)). Moreover, "with mounting federal case loads [and reduced resources], ... it
has become doubly important that the district courts take measures to discover those suits which
[do not belong in a federal court] and to dismiss them when the court is convinced to a legal
certainty that the plaintiff cannot recover an amount in excess of the [the minimum statutory
jurisdictional amount.]" Tongkook, 14 F.3d at 784 (quoting Deutsch v. Hewes St. Realtv Com.,
359 F.2d 96, 98 (2d Cir. 1996)) (parentheticals in original).
Here, plaintiff seeks $600,000 in damages, but alleges that she has spent approximately
$3,000 in connection with her prior Mini Cooper, owes $5,550 to the finance company for her
current Mini Cooper and needs approximately $11,700 to repair the car. The sum of these
amounts equals $20,250, far less than $75,000. Thus, plaintiff has not met her burden "to a
'reasonable probability' that the claim is in excess of the statutory jurisdictional amount." Chase
Manhattan Bank, 93 F.3d at 1070 (quotations omitted). However, "[b]efore determining that the
amount in controversy requirement has not been met, the court must afford plaintiff the
opportunity to show good faith in believing that a recovery in excess of [$75,000] is reasonably
possible." Id.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained above, the Court finds that it may lack subject matter jurisdiction
over plaintiffs complaint. Therefore, plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint
within 30 days from the entry of this Order on the docket to demonstrate that a good faith basis
exists for satisfYing the amount in controversy requirement of28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff is
advised that any amended complaint she files will completely replace the original complaint. The
amended complaint must be captioned, "Amended Complaint," and shall bear the same docket

4

number as this Order.
All further proceedings shall be stayed until the expiration of the time granted to file an
amended complaint or until an amended complaint is filed, whichever occurs first. If plaintiff fails
to file an amended complaint, judgment dismissing this action without prejudice to its refiling in a
court of appropriate jurisdiction shall be entered. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status
is denied for the purpose of any appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).

SO ORDERED.

---- ~~ .--....

.

---

ERIC N. VITALIANO
United States District Judge

Dated: Brooklyn, New York
June 30,2012

5

---