Mohammad v. Art et al

Filing 3

Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing this matter for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. The Court further certifies that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3). Judge John R. Adams on 9/13/17. (K,C)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Jerry Muhammad,
Plaintiff,
v.
Owner of Giant Auto, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 5:17 CV 1657
JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER

Pro se plaintiff Jerry Muhammad has filed this action against the owner of at Giant Auto in
Tallmadge, Ohio, and a mechanic at Giant Auto, David. (Doc. No. 1.) He alleges he had his truck
towed to Giant Auto to rebuild his transmission in May, but the mechanic sold him faulty parts. He
alleges his transmission subsequently failed, and that the defendants have refused to fix his truck
or to honor his warranty. He seeks monetary damages.
Federal courts 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). Pursuant to
Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[i]f the court determines at any time that it
lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Here, the Court must sua

sponte dismiss this action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Federal subject-matter jurisdiction may be asserted under 28 U.S.C. §1331 when a federal
question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint. Mich. South. R.R. Co.
v. Branch &. St. Joseph Counties Rail Users Ass’n, Inc., 287 F.3d 568, 573 (6th Cir. 2002). The face
of the plaintiff’s complaint does not present a federal question, or allege a federal cause of action.
Rather, the claims the plaintiff alleges, for breach of contract and warranty, arise under state law.
Federal subject-matter jurisdiction may be asserted over state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. §1332
when there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §1332. The plaintiff’s complaint, however, does not allege a valid
basis for an exercise of diversity jurisdiction over his state-law claims. The plaintiff indicates all
the parties are located or reside in Ohio, and he does not allege damages in excess of $75,000.
Conclusion
Accordingly, this action is dismissed for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. 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.

Date: September 13, 2017

/s/ John R. Adams
JOHN R. ADAMS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2