Troutman v. AT&T Mobility Corporation et al

Filing 14

ORDER by Judge Benjamin H Settle denying 10 Motion for Summary Judgment; finding as moot 13 Motion for Extension of Time.(TG; cc mailed to plaintiff)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA CHARLES HENRY TROUTMAN, Plaintiff, v. AT&T MOBILITY CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. CASE NO. C09-5666BHS ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DISMISSING CASE

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's ("Troutman") motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 10). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the motion and the remainder of the file and hereby denies the motion for the reasons stated herein. I. DISCUSSION On May 17, 2010, Troutman moved the Court for summary judgment in this matter. Dkt. 10. On May 20, 2010, Defendants responded. Dkt. 11. Troutman did not reply. On May 27, 2010, Troutman moved the Court to renote his summary judgment motion (Dkt. 10) to June 25. Dkt. 13.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

On April 1, 2010, the Court ordered Troutman to file a joint status report or face dismissal. Dkt. 6. To date, Troutman has not complied with this order, which alone is a basis to dismiss this matter without prejudice. This case should also be dismissed for other reasons. Troutman's complaint alleges only claims based on Washington State's laws. See Dkt. 1 (Complaint). In other words, we are not concerned with federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Troutman appears to be proceeding under diversity jurisdiction, which requires (1) complete diversity between the parties and (2) that the amount in controversy exceed $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Troutman, however, seeks damages only in the amount of $4,070 in addition to costs. Therefore, diversity jurisdiction cannot exist in this case as pleaded. See id. Because Troutman did not file the required joint status report and because he has not established that the Court possesses subject matter jurisdiction over his case, the matter is dismissed without prejudice. II. CONCLUSION Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Troutman's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 10) is DENIED, and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice, which MOOTS Troutman's motion to extend (Dkt. 13). DATED this 25th day of June, 2010.

A

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge

ORDER - 2