MATHEWS v. WESTIN WASHINGTON DULLES HOTEL et al
MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINIONSIGNED BY HONORABLE LEGROME D. DAVIS ON 3/4/13. 3/4/13 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE.(rf, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN D~JL.E OF PENNSYLVANIA
WESTIN WASHINGTON DULLES
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
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.
February 12, 2013 memorandum and order, the Court dismissed the
amended complaint because plaintiff failed to fully plead the
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.)
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
"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.
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.
Despite plaintiff's reference to "federal statutes," the
Court cannot discern any basis for a federal claim.
Compl. at 1. )
the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and
citizens of different States."
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."
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 ..
An appropriate order follows.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?