MATHEWS v. WESTIN WASHINGTON DULLES HOTEL et al

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINIONSIGNED BY HONORABLE LEGROME D. DAVIS ON 3/4/13. 3/4/13 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE.(rf, )

I
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN D~JL.E OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOHN MATHEWS

CIVIL ACTION

MAR -42013

v.

WESTIN WASHINGTON DULLES
et al.

HO'q_~LE.~U~p~~T~o.

13-143

MEMORANDUM

DAVIS, J.

MARCH

' 2013

Currently before the Court is plaintiff John Mathews's pro
se second amended complaint.

For the following reasons, the

Court will dismiss the second amended complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff brought his initial complaint against the Westin
Washington Pulles Hotel and Starwood, Inc., based on allegations
that the defendants' employees violated his constitutional
rights, defamed him, and caused him emotional distress during an
event that plaintiff planned at the hotel.

In a January 22, 2013

order, the Court granted plaintiff leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, dismissed his constitutional claims with prejudice
because none of the defendants are state actors for purposes of
42 U.S.C.

§

1983, and granted him leave to file an amended

complaint with respect to .his state law claims because it was not
clear whether diversity jurisdiction existed over those claims.
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint and added an additional
defendant, Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.

In a

February 12, 2013 memorandum and order, the Court dismissed the
amended complaint because plaintiff failed to fully plead the
1

citizenship of the defendants.

Plaintiff was given leave to file

a second amended complaint in the event that he could cure the
jurisdictional defect. 1
Plaintiff subsequently filed a second amended complaint
against Westin Washington Dulles Airport and Starwood Hotels
Resorts Worldwide Inc.

Plaintiff identifies himself as a

Pennsylvania citizen, alleges that Westin Washington Dulles
Airport is "a US citizen incorporated in Virginia," and further
alleges that Starwood, Inc.

(presumably the entity identified in

the caption as Starwood Hotels Resorts Worldwide Inc.) Is a "US
citizen hotel incorporated in the state of Maryland."
Am. Compl. at 1.)

(Second

However, plaintiff also alleges that the

"defendants incorporate in Virginia and [Connecticut]."
The substantive allegations of the second amended complaint are
essentially the same as the allegations in plaintiff's prior
pleadings.
"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).

The only possible basis for this

Court's subject matter jurisdiction is diversity jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C.

§

1332. 2

A federal district court has diversity

jurisdiction over a case where "the matter in controversy exceeds

The Court also dismissed any claims that plaintiff sought
to bring on behalf of Departure Travel.
1

Despite plaintiff's reference to "federal statutes," the
Court cannot discern any basis for a federal claim.
(Second Am.
Compl. at 1. )
2

2

the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and
is between

citizens of different States."

28 U.S.C.

§

1332(a) (1).
Plaintiff has now been informed twice that a corporation is
"a citizen of every State and foreign state by which it has been
incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its
principal place of business."

28 U.S.C.

§

1332(c) (1); see Jan.

22, 2013 Order, at 2 (Document No. 4); Feb. 12, 2013 Mem., at 3
(Document No. 9).

Nevertheless, his second amended complaint

does not state either defendant's principal place of business.
Accordingly, as it is not clear whether complete diversity exists
among the parties, the Court will dismiss the second amended
complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
As plaintiff was clearly instructed how to cure the
jurisdictional deficiency in his pleadings, but has been unable
to do so, the Court concludes that further attempts at amendment
would be futile.

The dismissal of this case is without prejudice

to plaintiff's refiling his claims in state court in accordance
with 42 Pa. Cons. Stat ..

§

5103(b).

3

An appropriate order follows.