Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_06-cv-00797/USCOURTS-almd-1_06-cv-00797-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 31:3731 Fraud

---

1. So far this year and the second half of last

year, in what is developing into a clear abuse of the

legal process, Nails has brought 21 lawsuits in forma

pauperis, of which 15 have already been summarily

dismissed. She seems to be suing everyone with whom she

has a dispute, no matter how minor, and asking for

exorbitant sums in damages.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANGELA DENISE NAILS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 1:06cv797-MHT

) (WO) 

ULTIMATE BUSINESS )

SOLUTIONS, )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION AND SHOW-CAUSE ORDER

Plaintiff Angela Denise Nails has brought this

lawsuit against defendant Ultimate Business Solutions

(UBS), complaining that UBS improperly withdrew $ 198.00

from her banking account and asking for $ 45 million in

damages.1

 Diversity of citizenship appears to be the

attempted basis for the court’s jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C.

Case 1:06-cv-00797-MHT-WC Document 18 Filed 01/11/07 Page 1 of 4
2

§ 1332. However, the court is obligated to carefully

examine its jurisdiction over a case and raise itself the

issue of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction when

necessary. Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Schmidt, ___ U.S.

____, ____, 126 S. Ct. 941, 950 (2006) (“subject-matter

jurisdiction must be considered by the court on its own

motion, even if no party raises an objection”); see also

Mansfield, C. & L.M. Ry. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 384

(1884) (“the judicial power of the United States must not

be exerted in a case to which it does not extend, even if

both parties desire to have it exerted”). Consequently,

the court can sua sponte dismiss a case for lack of

subject-matter jurisdiction. 

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) provides:

“The district courts shall have original

jurisdiction of all civil actions where

the matter in controversy exceeds the

sum or value of $ 75,000, exclusive of

interest and costs, and is between ...

Citizens of different States.”

Case 1:06-cv-00797-MHT-WC Document 18 Filed 01/11/07 Page 2 of 4
2. In Bonner v. Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th

Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit Court of

Appeals adopted as binding precedent all of the decisions

of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the

close of business on September 30, 1981.

3

Although this action is between citizens of Alabama and

California, the case does not appear to meet the

requirement of more-than-$ 75,000 amount in controversy.

When deciding whether the jurisdictional amount pled

in the complaint meets the requirements of 28 U.S.C.

§ 1332(a) the claim alleged must “appear to a legal

certainty [to be] really for less than the jurisdictional

amount.” Burns v. Anderson, 502 F.2d 970, 971-972 (5th

Cir. 1974)2

 (citing St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red

Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288-89 (1938) (It must appear to

a legal certainty that the claim is really less than the

jurisdictional amount to justify ... dismissal.”). 

Nails alleges in her complaint that UBS improperly

withdrew $ 198.00 from her checking account. She seeks

a return of the $ 198.00 and $ 45 million for mental

anguish and stress. It appears greatly doubtful that

Case 1:06-cv-00797-MHT-WC Document 18 Filed 01/11/07 Page 3 of 4
Nails can recover the requisite more-than-$ 75,000 let

alone $ 45 million for the loss of $ 198.00 from her

checking account. It therefore appears that it may be

clear to a legal certainty that Nails’s claim would only

support a recovery for an amount far, far less the

required more than $ 75,000. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that plaintiff Angela

Denise Nails show cause, if any there be, in writing by

January 26, 2007, as to why this lawsuit should not be

dismissed because the amount in controversy is not more

$ 75,000.00.

DONE, this the 11th day of January, 2007.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00797-MHT-WC Document 18 Filed 01/11/07 Page 4 of 4