Cordulack v. The Wal-Mart Corporation et al

Filing 3

ORDER that the Plaintiff's #2 Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs is DENIED. The Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days from the entry of this Order within which to pay the required filing fee. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiffs Complaint [Doc. 1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Filing Fee due by 10/24/2024). Signed by Chief Judge Martin Reidinger on 9/23/2024. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(kby)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:24-cv-00239-MR-WCM
CHRISTOPHER DONALD
CORDULACK,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
THE WAL-MART CORPORATION,
)
et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Application to
Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs [Doc. 2].
I.

BACKGROUND
The pro se Plaintiff brings this action for breach of contract against the

Defendants The Wal-Mart Corporation, an unnamed Walmart “Store
Manager,” the “Walmart CEO,” the “Walmart Board,” and “Assoc. Fiduciary
Corporations.” [Doc. 1 at 1-2]. As a basis for federal jurisdiction, the Plaintiff
claims diversity pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. [Id.]. For the citizenship of
the parties, the Plaintiff alleges that he is a citizen of North Carolina; that the
“Store Manager” is a citizen of North Carolina; and that the Walmart CEO is

a citizen of Arkansas. [Id.]. The Plaintiff makes no allegations regarding the
citizenship of the “Walmart Board” or the “Assoc. Fiduciary Corporations.”
[Id. at 2]. For the amount in controversy, the Plaintiff alleges that “[c]orporate
damages are incalculable, currently.” [Id. at 2-3].
As for the contract at issue, the Plaintiff alleges that such contract was
entered into by him and “Walmart” on September 12, 2024, and that the
contract required the parties to “remunerate each other under fiduciary
standards at minimum time cost.” [Id. at 4]. In the section of the complaint
form which asks the Plaintiff to identify whether the contract was written or
oral, he writes, “unknowable.” [Id.]. For damages, the Plaintiff claims “US
$35 plus processing fee.” [Id.].
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. United States

ex rel. Vuyyuru v. Jadhav, 555 F.3d 337, 347 (4th Cir. 2009). “Thus, when a
district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over an action, the action must
be dismissed.” Id. The lack of subject matter jurisdiction is an issue that
may be raised at any time. See Ellenburg v. Spartan Motors Chassis, Inc.,
519 F.3d 192, 196 (4th Cir. 2008). “If the court determines at any time that it
lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
2

III.

DISCUSSION
A.

Application to Proceed with Prepaying Fees or Costs

The Plaintiff seeks to proceed with this civil action without having to
prepay the costs associated with prosecuting the matter. [Doc. 2].

In his

Application, the Plaintiff asserts that he has an annual income of $72,900,
and he claims only $2.50 in monthly expenses. [Id. at 2, 4]. Based on the
information provided, it appears to the Court that the Plaintiff has sufficient
resources from which to pay the filing fee for this action. Consequently, the
Plaintiff’s application is denied.
B.

Section 1915 Review of Complaint

In order to have subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s claims
pursuant to § 1332, there must be diversity of citizenship between the parties
and more than $75,000 in controversy. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. In his
Complaint, the Plaintiff does not identify the amount in controversy involved,
stating only that the damages are “incalculable.” [Doc. 1 at 4]. Moreover,
the Complaint fails to establish the diversity of the parties’ citizenship, as the
Plaintiff alleges that both he and the unnamed Walmart “Store Manager” are
citizens of North Carolina. [Id. at 2]. Because the Complaint fails to establish
that diversity jurisdiction exists—there being no other basis for subject matter
3

jurisdiction asserted—the Court concludes that this action must be dismissed
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.1
IV.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has

sufficient resources from which to pay the required filing fee. Accordingly,
his application to proceed without the prepayment of fees or costs is denied.
The Court further concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the
Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Accordingly, the Complaint is dismissed without

prejudice.

ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Application to
Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs [Doc. 2] is
DENIED. The Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days from the entry of this Order
within which to pay the required filing fee.

Even if subject matter jurisdiction existed in this case, the Plaintiff’s Complaint would
subject to dismissal as being frivolous. While the Plaintiff alleges that he entered into a
contract with “Walmart,” the Plaintiff fails to sufficiently allege the existence of any contract
or specific contractual provision that was breached by any of the named Defendants.
Further, to the extent that the Plaintiff claims the breach of his contractual rights, such
allegations are too vague and conclusory to state a claim.
4
1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Complaint [Doc. 1] is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: September 23, 2024

5