Ruddy v. Mastercard Network & All Affiliates et al

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM And ORDER directing pltf to file an amended complaint w/i 21 days that shall sufficiently demonstrate subject matter jurisdiction; failure to do so will result in dismissal of case. 1 Signed by Honorable James M. Munley on 12/4/12. (sm)

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MICHAEL JOSEPH RUDDY,
on behalf of himself and all
similarly situated,
Plaintiff

:
No. 3:12cv2376
:
:
(Judge Munley)
:
:
v.
:
:
MASTERCARD NETWORK & ALL
:
AFFILIATES, VISA CARD NETWORK :
& ALL AFFILIATES, AMERICAN
:
EXPRESS and DISCOVER,
:
Defendants
:
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
MEMORANDUM
Before the court is Plaintiff Michael Joseph Ruddy’s class action
complaint against various credit and debit card companies for various
frauds. (See Doc. 1, Compl.). Because the complaint fails to clearly state
the basis upon which this court has subject matter jurisdiction, the court will
dismiss Plaintiff Michael Joseph Ruddy’s complaint unless he amends his
complaint to show that this court’s jurisdiction is proper.
Background
Plaintiff Michael Joseph Ruddy (hereinafter “plaintiff”) filed the instant
complaint on November 28, 2012 against Defendants Mastercard Network
and all affiliates, Visa Card Network and all affiliates, American Express,

and Discover (hereinafter “defendants”). (See Doc. 1, Compl.). Plaintiff
brings this action on behalf of himself and others who are similarly situated,
and seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief on behalf of himself and
all prospective class members. (Id. at 3, 6-7). Plaintiff’s factual allegations
are as follows:
Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and as a
representative of a class (Card Holders). The Swipe Fee is not
a fee but a surtax on the gross sale (price tax, tips, extras).
Credit Card companies and banks (Networks) were in collusion
to charge the merchants exorbitant fees which the merchants
passed onto the customers (Card Holders). Plaintiffs allege the
Defendants place merchants and their customers in a no-win
situation and that customers are being held hostage. The
Defendants are imposing a hidden charge on Card Holders.
Debit Card Holders are paying two fees: a swipe fee and a
bank fee. Credit Card Holders are paying swipe fee and high
interest rates. By calling the swipe fee a fee is a blatant
misrepresentation (fraud) thereby enriching themselves by
hundreds of billions of dollars a year. This has been going on
for years.
(Id. at 4). In addition to the above-quoted allegations, plaintiff’s complaint
includes counts for alleged trespass, battery, fraud, a claim for “equity,”
punitive damages and a claim for “clawback.” (Id. at 5-6).
Plaintiff alleges that this action is brought “pursuant to the laws of the
commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Federal laws of the United States
of America.” (Id. at 3). Moreover, under the “Jurisdiction and Venue”

2

portion of the complaint, plaintiff alleges as follows:
(A)

Plaintiff and some members of the class reside in the
Middle District Court of Pennsylvania.

(B)

Defendants do business in the Middle District Area.

(Id.)
Discussion
Federal courts have an obligation to address issues of subject matter
jurisdiction sua sponte. See Shaffer v. GTE North, Inc., 284 F.3d 500, 502
(3d Cir. 2002) (citing Club Comanche, Inc. v. Gov't of the Virgin Islands,
278 F.3d 250, 255 (3d Cir. 2002)). Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, federal complaints are required to contain “a short and plain
statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, unless the court
already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support.”
FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(1).
Even when the court liberally construes the instant pro se complaint,
the court cannot identify the basis upon which plaintiff invokes this court’s
subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff does not cite 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or §
1332. Plaintiff does not state whether this case is brought pursuant to
federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiff does not cite or specifically reference
any federal statute. Plaintiff does not indicate that the parties are diverse.
3

Therefore, the court cannot determine whether it has subject matter
jurisdiction to proceed with this case because plaintiff alleges neither the
citizenship of all of the parties to this action, nor do plaintiff’s causes of
action appear to rely upon federal law.
Conclusion
Plaintiff’s complaint fails to show the existence of subject matter
jurisdiction. The plaintiff will be given twenty-one (21) days to file an
amended complaint if he can show that this court has subject matter
jurisdiction over this matter. Failure to do so will result in this action being
dismissed. An appropriate order follows.

4

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MICHAEL JOSEPH RUDDY,
on behalf of himself and all
similarly situated,
Plaintiff

:
No. 3:12cv2376
:
:
(Judge Munley)
:
:
v.
:
:
MASTERCARD NETWORK & ALL
:
AFFILIATES, VISA CARD NETWORK :
& ALL AFFILIATES, AMERICAN
:
EXPRESS and DISCOVER,
:
Defendants
:
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
ORDER
AND NOW, to wit, this 4th day of December 2012, Plaintiff Michael
Joseph Ruddy is hereby ORDERED to file an amended complaint within
twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff’s amended
complaint shall sufficiently demonstrates this Court’s basis for exercising
subject matter jurisdiction. Failure to comply with this Order will result in
the dismissal of this action.

BY THE COURT:
s/ James M. Munley
JUDGE JAMES M. MUNLEY
United States District Court

5