Smith v. Holliday et al

Filing 5

ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 5/8/2017 DISMISSING the Complaint and this case. If within 60 days of the date of this order, the plaintiff files an amended complaint demonstrating either complete diversity or a federal claim, may reopen the case. (cc: all counsel; by US Mail to plaintiff)(pwm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

CHARMANE SMITH,

Case No. 17-cv-487-PP

Plaintiff,
v.
ALANE HOLLIDAY, DDS AND
AMERICAN DENTAL PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES,
Defendants.

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT (DKT. NO. 1)

On April 4, 2017, plaintiff Charmane Smith filed a complaint against
Alane Holliday, DDS, and American Dental Professional Services. Dkt. No. 1.
The plaintiff alleges that on January 19, 2017, she sought dental treatment at
American Dental Professional Services in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Id. at 1. She
appears to be alleging that she received fraudulent treatment from Alane
Holliday, DDS, who pretended to take mouth x-rays, may have taken an
unrequested abdomen x-ray, showed the plaintiff films of x-rays that were not
hers, and gave the plaintiff a false diagnoses and advice. Id. at 1-2. Because
this court has no jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claims, it must dismiss the
complaint.
The caption of the complaint states, “Diversity Jurisdiction Pursuant to
Title 28 U.S.C. { 1332.” Dkt. No. 1 at 1. That statute allows a federal court to
exercise jurisdiction over a case if the suit is between “citizens of different
1

States,” 28 U.S.C. §1332(a)(1), if the amount in controversy exceeding
$75,000.00, 28 U.S.C. §1332(b). Diversity jurisdiction “applies only to cases in
which the citizenship of each plaintiff is diverse from the citizenship of each
defendant.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996).
The complaint indicates that the plaintiff lives in Tennessee. Dkt. No. 1
at 1. It also indicates that defendant Holliday is a resident of Tennessee. Id.
Defendant American Dental Professional Services appears to be a resident of
Wisconsin. Id. The plaintiff is “diverse” from defendant American Dental
Professional Services, because she lives in a different state from that
corporation. But the plaintiff and defendant Holliday are both residents of
Tennessee, and thus are not “diverse.” Because there is not complete diversity
between the plaintiff and both of the defendants, the court does not have
diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1332(a)(1). “A court lacks discretion to
consider the merits of a case over which it is without jurisdiction”. Belleville
Catering Co. v. Champaign Mkt. Place, L.L.C., 350 F.3d 691, 693 (7th Cir.
2003) (quoting Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368, 379, 101
S.Ct. 669, 66 L.Ed.2d 571 (1981)).
The court ORDERS that the complaint, and this case, are DISMISSED.
Dkt. No. 1. If, within sixty days of the date of this order, the plaintiff files an

2

amended complaint demonstrating either complete diversity or a federal claim,
may reopen the case.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 8th day of May, 2017.

3