Talib v. AAA Insurance Auto Club Group et al

Filing 3

Memorandum of Opinion and Order dismissing this action for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. The dismissal is without prejudice to any claims the plaintiff may properly bring in a state court on the facts alleged. The Court further certifies that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge Donald C. Nugent on 12/6/2017 (C,KA)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Rakhshanda Y. Talib,
Plaintiff,
v.
AAA Insurance, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:17 CV 2514
JUDGE DONALD C. NUGENT

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER

Pro se Plaintiff Rakhshanda Talib has filed this in forma pauperis civil action against “AAA
Insurance The Auto Club Group” and Katherine Probert, Agent. (See Doc. No. 1.) She asserts
claims for property damage in the amount of $1,805.13, and seeks punitive damages in the amount
of $5,415.39, in connection with damages to her car that occurred in February 2017. She alleges
she has a right to seek recovery for the damages on the basis of insurance she has with “AAA Auto
Insurance (aka Auto Club Group, Independence Ohio, Dearborn Michigan, Chicago Illinois).” (See
id. at 3-4.)
Federal courts, however, are courts of limited jurisdiction and must dismiss any case in
which they determine federal subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking. See Nagalingam v. Wilson,
Sowards, Bowling & Costanzo, 8 F. App'x 486, 487, 2001 WL 493392 (6th Cir. May 1, 2001); Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, [it]
must dismiss the action.”).
This case must dismissed for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction.

The basic statutory grants of federal subject-matter jurisdiction are contained in 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1331 and 1332. Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513 (2006). A plaintiff may invoke
federal question subject-matter jurisdiction under § 1331 when she pleads a colorable claim “arising
under” the Constitution or laws of the United States. Id.; 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The face of the
plaintiff’s complaint does not present a claim arising under federal law. The only discernible claims
alleged in the complaint are damage claims arising under state law. Federal subject-matter
jurisdiction may be asserted over state-law claims under §1332 when there is complete diversity of
citizenship between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.
See 28 U.S.C. §1332. The plaintiff’s filings, however, do not demonstrate a basis for an exercise
of federal diversity jurisdiction as they do not demonstrate that all of the parties are of diverse
citizenship, or that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
Conclusion
Accordingly, this action is dismissed for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. The
dismissal is without prejudice to any claims the plaintiff may properly bring in a state court on the
facts alleged. The Court further certifies that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good
faith. 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/Donald C. Nugent
DONALD C. NUGENT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: _December 6, 2017___

-2-