Schmidt v. Waterstone Bank SSB
ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 8/6/2018: GRANTING 4 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss; DENYING 10 Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery; and DISMISSING CASE without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Order. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Steven R. Schmidt) (jm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
STEVEN R. SCHMIDT,
WATERSTONE BANK SSB,
Case No. 18-CV-863-JPS-JPS
Plaintiff filed this action pro se on June 6, 2018. (Docket #1). Though
his allegations are difficult to follow, the Court gathers that he obtained a
mortgage through Defendant. Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff seems to be aggrieved by
Defendant’s conduct in seeking payment of that loan, calling it predatory.
Id. at 2–5. He alleges that this action is “[a] Disabled Person Discrimination
case, Federal violations of equal Rights persons with disabilities act,
fraudulent acts of WaterStone accounting errors.” Id. at 1. Plaintiff asks that
the Court stay any foreclosure actions by Defendant, order Defendant to
respond to various discovery requests, find that his mortgage is satisfied in
full, and award him damages. Id. at 5.
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on June 27, 2018 arguing, inter
alia, that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case. (Docket
#4). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and may only hear
cases in two primary categories: 1) those raising issues of federal law,
known as “federal question” jurisdiction, and 2) those between parties who
are citizens of different states and which involve an amount in controversy
exceeding $75,000.00, known as “diversity” jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§
1331 and 1332(a). Plaintiff’s complaint does not validly assert either form of
subject matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff alleges that he and Defendant are both citizens of
Wisconsin. (Docket #1 at 1). Thus, diversity jurisdiction is lacking regardless
of the amount in controversy. As to federal question jurisdiction, the only
sources of federal law available to Plaintiff are federal statutes or the
Constitution. Neither apply here. Plaintiff alleges that he was discriminated
against because of his disabilities, but fails to identify a federal law which
would protect him from such discrimination in the context of a mortgage.
It seems as though Plaintiff wishes to invoke the protections of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., but that law
applies only to discrimination in employment, id. §§ 12111-12117, access to
public services, id. at §§ 12131-12134, and access to public facilities operated
by private companies (e.g., wheelchair-accessible ramps for access to a
hotel), id. at §§ 12181-12189. The Constitution is also of no help to Plaintiff,
as Defendant is not a state actor. Hallinan v. Fraternal Order of Police of Chi.
Lodge No. 7, 570 F.3d 811, 815–16 (7th Cir. 2009).
Without subject matter jurisdiction, this Court cannot hear Plaintiff’s
case. The action must, therefore, be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff’s
response to Defendant’s motion included a request for the Court to order
production of certain documents. (Docket #10 at 2). No documents in
Defendant’s possession could change the result here; the lack of subject
matter jurisdiction is evident on the face of the complaint. That request will,
therefore, be denied.
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Docket #4) be
and the same is hereby GRANTED;
Page 2 of 3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for discovery
documents (Docket #10) be and the same is hereby DENIED; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action be and the same is
hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 6th day of August, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
J. P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge
Page 3 of 3
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?