Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-02255/USCOURTS-ca4-15-02255-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ford Motor Company
Appellee
Ford Motor Company Insurance Company
Appellee
Gwendolyn A. Spence
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2255

GWENDOLYN A. SPENCE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY; FORD MOTOR COMPANY INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District 

Judge. (2:15-cv-00069-AWA-LRL)

Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: February 29, 2016

Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gwendolyn A. Spence, Appellant Pro Se. Barry Dorans, WOLCOTT 

RIVERS & GATES, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Paul D. Hudson, MILLER, 

CANFIELD, PADDOCK & STONE, PLC, Kalamazoo, Michigan, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2255 Doc: 15 Filed: 02/29/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Gwendolyn A. Spence appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing her complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 

We affirm.

We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for lack of 

subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(1). Demetres v. East West Const., Inc., 776 F.3d 271, 272 

(4th Cir. 2015). A plaintiff has the burden of establishing 

subject-matter jurisdiction. Id.

Spence’s complaint alleges federal-question and intellectualproperty jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a) (2012), but 

her claims are all based on state law and do not contain any 

intellectual-property claims. Although the parties are diverse, 

Spence did not allege a dollar amount in her complaint. See JTH 

Tax, Inc. v. Frashier, 624 F.3d 635, 638 (4th Cir. 2010) (“Courts 

generally determine the amount in controversy by reference to the 

plaintiff’s complaint.”); see also Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Glob. 

Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 570-71 (2004) (“It has long been the 

case that the jurisdiction of the court depends upon the state of 

things at the time of the action brought.”). Thus, we conclude 

that the district court correctly found itself without subjectmatter jurisdiction.

Accordingly, although we grant Spence’s motion for leave to 

file untimely opposition reply brief, we affirm the judgment of 

Appeal: 15-2255 Doc: 15 Filed: 02/29/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 15-2255 Doc: 15 Filed: 02/29/2016 Pg: 3 of 3