Hoffman v. Charter Communications Inc et al
Filing
24
ORDER AND OPINION RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 19 Report and Recommendation denying 22 Plaintiff Heather C Hoffman's Motion to Amend/Correct and dismissing without prejudice the complaint. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 6/12/2018. (sshe, )
IN THE UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION
Heather C. Hoffman,
Plaintiff,
v.
Charter Communications,
Defendant.
Civil Action No. 9:18-1145-RMG
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER AND OPINION
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge, recommending this action be summarily dismissed, and Plaintiffs motion for leave to
amend the complaint.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the Report and
Recommendation, denies the motion for leave to amend, and dismisses this action without
prejudice.
I.
Background
Plaintiff, proceedingpro se, alleges Charter Communications, also known as Time Warner
Cable (acquired by Charter in May 2016) or Spectrum (Charter' s branding for its residential
services), raised her rates for cable television service by ten dollars and her rates for home internet
service by five dollars without providing thirty days ' advance written notice. She also alleges
Charter provided a false reason for the increase when it told her that she had been receiving a
promotional rate. Plaintiff filed the present action on April 26, 2018 , asserting a claim under the
South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act (" SCUTP A") against Charter. Although only a statelaw cause of action is asserted, Plaintiff asserts this Court' s federal question jurisdiction. The
Magistrate Judge recommended summary dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on May
23 , 2018. Plaintiff responded to the Report and Recommendation by filing a motion for leave to
-1-
amend the complaint to add references to federal criminal statutes regarding mail fraud and wire
fraud and to purport to assert a fraud claim under Rule 9 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
or Section Five of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45).
II.
Legal Standard
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with
this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 , 270-71 (1976). This Court is charged with making
a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific
objection is made. Additionally, the Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). This Court
may also "receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with
instructions." Id. Where the plaintiff fails to file any specific objections, "a district court need not
conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face
of the record in order to accept the recommendation," see Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident
Ins. Co., 416 F .3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation omitted), and this Court is not
required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, Camby
v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198 (4th Cir. 1983).
III.
Discussion
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. In re Bulldog Trucking, Inc., 14 7 F.3d
34 7, 3 52 (4th Cir. 1998). A federal court may sua sponte determine if a valid basis for jurisdiction
exists, and must "dismiss the action if no such ground appears." Id. at 352. One basis for
jurisdiction is federal question jurisdiction, which is "original jurisdiction of all civil actions
arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Generally,
"the presence or absence of [a] federal question is governed by the ' well-pleaded complaint rule,'
-2-
which provides that federal question jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented
on the face of the plaintiffs properly pleaded complaint." Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams , 482 U.S.
386, 392 (1987). In limited circumstances, federal jurisdiction may also exist over state law claims
that "implicate significant federal issues" that are substantial and actually contested, if federal
jurisdiction would not upset the "balance between federal and state judicial responsibilities."
Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Eng 'g & Mfg. , 545 U.S. 308, 311-12 (2005). But a
private right of action "to enforce federal law must be created by Congress." Alexander v.
Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 286 (2001).
The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the complaint on its face asserts a statelaw SCUTPA claim, not a federal claim. Generally, a suit arises under the law that creates the
cause of action. Am. Well Works Co. v. Lay ne & Bowler Co., 241 U.S. 257, 260 (1916).
Apparently attempting to show this action implicates "significant federal issues," the complaint
extensively references certain federal regulations (47 C.F.R. §§ 76.1603 & 76.16019) governing
cable television notice of service and rate changes and information required on cable television
subscriber bills. But, as the Magistrate Judge notes, those regulations provide no private cause of
action and "if the sole federal statute referenced by Plaintiff provides no federal cause of action,
then it can hardly be said that Plaintiff is casting a federal law claim- any such claim would be
non-existent." McKnight v. Surgical Assoc. of Myrtle Beach LLC, Case No. 4:11-cv- 2782-RBH,
2011WL5869800, *5- 6 (D.S.C. Nov. 18, 2011). The Court therefore agrees with the Magistrate
Judge' s recommendation that there is no federal subject-matter jurisdiction over this action.
While leave to amend should be freely granted, it is not granted where the proposed
amended complaint is futile on its face. See Johnson v. Oroweat Foods Co., 785 F.2d 503 , 510
(4th Cir. 1986). Federal criminal statutes regarding mail fraud or wire fraud do not provide a
-3-
private cause of action in federal court. Jones v. Luthi, 586 F. Supp. 2d 595, 616 (D.S.C. 2008).
Section Five of the Federal Trade Commission Act does not provide a private cause of action. Id.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not create substantive rights and cannot provide a federal
cause of action. See 28 U.S.C. § 2072. Plaintiffs attempt to assert causes of action under these
statutes or rules is futile. The Court therefore denies the motion for leave to amend the complaint.
IV.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 19) as the Order of the Court, DENIES the motion for leave to amend
(Dkt. No. 22), and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the complaint.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
Richard Mark
e
United States District
June /L, 2018
Charleston, South Carolina
-4-
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?