Springman et al v. Prime Logistics Corp. et al

Filing 80

Memorandum of Opinion and Order For the reasons set forth herein, this case is dismissed sua sponte and without prejudice because jurisdiction is not evident and it is unclear that Plaintiffs allege a viable cause of action. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 4/6/2018. (JLG)

PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

JEFFREY D. SPRINGMAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
PRIME LOGISTICS CORP., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 4:17CV2544

JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND
ORDER

I. Background
This pro se contract dispute action was purportedly brought on the basis of diversity
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. ECF No. 1. In their original complaint, pro se
Plaintiffs Jeffrey D. Springman and Lendy Long assert that the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1332
are met because Defendant Prime Logistics Corp. is a citizen of Illinois; Defendant P.A.M.
Transport is a citizen of Arkansas; and Defendant Cherokee Insurance is a citizen of Michigan,
but Plaintiffs fail to indicate their states of citizenship and whether “the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000.00 exclusive of interests and costs.” ECF No. 1 at PageID#: 1; see 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a).
II. Legal Requirements
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) provides that the complaint shall contain “a short and plain statement
of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends.” Moreover, because a corporation is
considered a citizen of both its place of incorporation and its principal place of business, the

(4:17CV2544)
plaintiff attempting to invoke diversity jurisdiction must allege both the corporation’s state of
incorporation and its principal place of business. See Vaughn v. Holiday Inn Cleveland
Coliseum, 56 F. App’x 249, 250 (6th Cir. 2003). Because Plaintiffs’ original complaint failed to
properly state the grounds for the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, the Court concluded that
Plaintiffs’ original complaint was insufficient to establish the Court’s jurisdiction over the case.
See ECF No. 20.
On February 28, 2018, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to (1) file a jurisdictional statement
establishing the citizenship of each Defendant, and whether the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000.00; and, (2) amend their complaint, so as to provide a more definite statement of their
claim(s) against Defendants, within seven days of the Order. See ECF No. 20 at PageID#: 226.
The Court warned Plaintiffs that failure to comply with the Court’s Order would result in
immediate dismissal of the case without further notice. Id.
On March 5, 2018, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. ECF No. 26. Plaintiffs failed
to file a jurisdictional statement as ordered by the Court. See ECF No. 20 at PageID#: 226. For
the reasons provided below, even construing Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint in the most liberal
light, the Court submits that the case must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
III. Analysis
While pro se pleadings are liberally construed and held to a less stringent standard than
one drafted by an attorney, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), the district court may, at
any time, sua sponte dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed.
R Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (h)(3). The court must be satisfied of its own jurisdiction to hear the

2

(4:17CV2544)
claims presented and may address the lack of jurisdiction at any time during the course of an
action. Campanella v. Commerce Exch. Bank, 137 F.3d 885, 890 (6th Cir.1998). When subject
matter jurisdiction is found to be lacking, dismissal is required. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
The Court is one of limited jurisdiction. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, “[t]he district
courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds
the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between . . . citizens of
different States.” Unless the diversity and amount-in-controversy requirements of 28 U.S.C. §
1332 are both met, or some other basis for jurisdiction is established, the Court cannot take any
action in this case. Von Dunser v. Aronoff, 915 F.2d 1071, 1074 (6th Cir. 1990). The burden of
establishing subject matter jurisdiction and overcoming the presumption rests upon the plaintiffs
because they are the parties who seek to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian
Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).
Despite being prompted to file a jurisdiction statement, no such filing is evident on the
docket. Plaintiffs have failed to establish that the Court has jurisdiction.1

1

Although Plaintiffs assert that this action is brought on the basis of diversity
jurisdiction, Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint cites to “18 U.S.C. § 1964-Civil Remedies.”
ECF No. 26 at PageID#: 261. 18 U.S.C. § 1964 relates to remedies for violations
committed under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statute, 18 U.S.C. §
1962. Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint does not appear to allege either a legal or factual
basis to seek a remedy under this statute, in which to establish grounds for the Court’s
jurisdiction. See Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999) (affirming district
court’s authority to sua sponte dismiss a non-prisoner pro se complaint for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction “at any time when the allegations of the complaint are totally
implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, or no longer open for
discussion.”).
3

(4:17CV2544)
Additionally, while Plaintiffs timely filed an Amended Complaint, ECF No. 26, the
Amended Complaint contains the same deficiencies obvious in the original complaint. Cf. ECF
Nos. 1 and 26 (both complaints fail to state the grounds for the Court’s subject matter
jurisdiction, a proper cause of action, and factual bases for a cause of action).
Because Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint fails to state the basis for the Court’s subject
matter jurisdiction, and provides insufficient legal and factual content from which the Court
could reasonably infer that Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ rights, the case is subject to dismissal.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999) (affirming district
court’s authority to sua sponte dismiss a non-prisoner pro se complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction “at any time when the allegations of the complaint are totally implausible, attenuated,
unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, or no longer open for discussion.”).
IV.
Accordingly, the case is dismissed sua sponte and without prejudice because jurisdiction
is not evident and it is unclear that Plaintiffs allege a viable cause of action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge

April 6, 2018
Date

4