Glenn, Gwendolyn v. U.S. Bank

Filing 4

ORDER that plaintiff Gwendolyn D. Glenn may have until July 22, 2016, to file an amended complaint containing good faith allegations sufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Specifically, plaintiff must plead a plausible amount in controversy. Failure to timely amend will result in prompt dismissal of this matter for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 7/8/2016. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

GWENDOLYN D. GLENN,
Plaintiff,
v.

OPINION & ORDER
16-cv-403-jdp

U.S. BANK,
Defendant.

Pro se plaintiff Gwendolyn D. Glenn has filed a complaint against defendant U.S.
Bank. This case is nearly identical to a case that plaintiff filed in this court last year. Glenn v.
U.S. Bank, No. 15-cv-816 (W.D. Wis. filed Dec. 21, 2015) (Glenn I). On May 10, 2016, I
issued an order in Glenn I dismissing plaintiff’s complaint because it duplicated a case that
was pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Opinion
and Order, Glenn I, ECF No. 21. It appears that the Texas case has since been dismissed
without prejudice; after warning plaintiff that her inactivity and failure to respond to U.S.
Bank’s motion to dismiss would result in dismissal of her case and ordering her to explain
why she had not advanced her case, the Texas court dismissed plaintiff’s claims against U.S.
Bank without prejudice. Glenn v. US Bank NA, No. 15-cv-3762 (N.D. Tex. June 6, 2016).
Now plaintiff has refiled her claims here. The court granted plaintiff leave to proceed
in forma pauperis. Dkt. 3. Usually at this point I would screen plaintiff’s complaint and dismiss
any portion that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or asks for money damages from a defendant who by law cannot be sued for money
damages. 28 U.S.C. § 1915. But because plaintiff has not alleged sufficient plausible facts for

me to determine whether I have subject matter jurisdiction over her case, I will direct plaintiff
to file an amended complaint that establishes jurisdiction.

ALLEGATIONS OF FACT
Plaintiff alleges that U.S. Bank has withheld money from and closed plaintiff’s bank
accounts without her permission, because the accounts were inactive. Plaintiff indicates that
two entities—the YWCA and “Capital View Ter”—are somehow associated with the two
accounts and that neither entity informed plaintiff that this would happen. Plaintiff alleges
that she put nearly $11 million in one account and $127,000 in the other. Plaintiff asks the
court to order U.S. Bank to return the money that is missing from her accounts.
As stated above, this is the second suit that plaintiff has filed against U.S. Bank in this
court over the past several months. In the first suit, plaintiff alleged that she had been unable
to withdraw more than $64 billion from two accounts that she had with U.S. Bank. Plaintiff’s
filings indicated that the accounts were somehow affiliated with legal settlements she had
received. But supplemental documents that plaintiff filed in that case told a different story.
Several years ago, plaintiff received legal settlements from the YWCA in Madison, Wisconsin
for $3,500 and from Skyline Point LLC, Advantage Management, and State Automobile
Mutual Insurance Company for $1,850, as a result of an accident that occurred near “Capital
View Terrace.” Supplements to Complaint, Glenn I, ECF Nos. 8-10. This information is
relevant because plaintiff indicates that the bank accounts at issue in this case are associated
with the YWCA and “Capital View Ter.”

2

ANALYSIS
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs, Local
150 v. Ward, 563 F.3d 276, 280 (7th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). Unless the party
invoking federal jurisdiction establishes complete diversity of citizenship among the parties
and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000, or raises a federal question, the court must
dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. Smart v. Local 702 Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 562 F.3d
798, 802 (7th Cir. 2009). Federal courts “have an independent obligation to determine
whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even when no party challenges it.” Hertz Corp. v.
Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94 (2010). The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of
establishing that jurisdiction is proper. Smart, 562 F.3d at 802-03.
Here, plaintiff does not raise any federal questions; regardless of whether I
characterize plaintiff’s claim against U.S. Bank for mishandling her accounts as theft,
conversion, fraud, or some type of breach of fiduciary duty, plaintiff brings only state law
claims against U.S. Bank. As a result, the only way for plaintiff to invoke federal jurisdiction
is to establish diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Diversity jurisdiction exists
when: (1) the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000; and (2) the parties are citizens of
different states.
First, plaintiff undermines her own invocation of federal jurisdiction because she
alleges that she and U.S. Bank are both citizens of Wisconsin. If this were indeed the case, I
would have to dismiss plaintiff’s case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the
parties would not be diverse. But U.S. Bank appears to be a citizen of Ohio, not Wisconsin.
See U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Aragon, No. 13-cv-7301, 2015 WL 1228978, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Mar.
13, 2015) (“The parties are diverse in citizenship: Plaintiff U.S. Bank National Association is

3

chartered under the laws of Ohio where its headquarters and principal place of business are
located.”).
But even assuming that the parties are diverse, plaintiff has another problem. To
establish federal jurisdiction, plaintiff must plead an amount in controversy that exceeds
$75,000. Because plaintiff is invoking this court’s jurisdiction, she “has the burden of
showing by a preponderance of the evidence facts that suggest the amount-in-controversy
requirement is met.” Oshana v. Coca-Cola Co., 472 F.3d 506, 511 (7th Cir. 2006). “[A] goodfaith estimate of the stakes is acceptable if it is plausible and supported by a preponderance
of the evidence.” Id. Here, plaintiff alleges that over $11 million is at issue in this case. But
plaintiff’s allegations fall short of plausible, especially in light of the fact that she has
previously asked courts for fantastical amounts of money—millions (or even billions) of
dollars in some instances—and plaintiff has submitted documents that indicate that the
settlements she received were for much less. Plaintiff’s allegation that she has received large
settlements is implausible in light of the documentation she provided in Glenn I.
Without a more robust showing from plaintiff, I cannot determine whether the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. As a result, I cannot determine whether I can
exercise subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s case. I will instruct plaintiff to file an
amended complaint that contains a good faith, plausible estimate of the amount in
controversy supported by at least some evidence. Plaintiff will need to reconcile her
allegations with the settlement documents that she has submitted to the court.

4

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff Gwendolyn D. Glenn may have until July 22, 2016, to file an amended
complaint containing good faith allegations sufficient to establish subject matter
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Specifically, plaintiff must plead a
plausible amount in controversy.
2. Failure to timely amend will result in prompt dismissal of this matter for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.
Entered July 8, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

5