2011 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

4-18-2011 

# D a v id R o ck efel le r v . C omc a s t C or p

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al

D ock e t N o . 10-4494

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w
. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2011

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2011 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w
. v i l l a no v a

. e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" D a v id R ock efe l le r v

. C omcas t C or p " (2011). 2011 D e cisio n s

. P a pe r 1421. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w
. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2011/1421

### HLD

- 109 (February 2011) NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________
No. 10

- 4494

___________ DAVID ROCKEFELLER,

Appellant

v.
COMCAST CORPORATION; BRIAN ROBERTS, President/CEO of Comcast

_______ _____________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil No. 10

- cv

- 06004) District Judge: Honorable Joseph E. Irenas

____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

February 28, 2011 Before: MCKEE, Circuit Judge ALDISERT and WEIS
, Circuit Judges

( Opinion filed April 18, 2011)

_________
OPINION

_________
PER CURIAM

.

David Rockefeller appeals pro se from an order dismissing his complaint
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because no substantial question is presented by2



### this appeal, we will summarily affirm the order of the District Court.

Rockefeller filed a complaint against Comcast Corporation (“Comcast”)
and Brian Roberts, Chairman and CEO of Comcast, alleging that Comcast damaged his
property, committed fraud and theft, overbilled for services, and fraudulently advertised.
Rockefeller demanded $5,000 in damages.

The District Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The District
Court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the complaint did not
allege facts supporting a federal question and the amount in controversy did not exceed
$75,000. Rockefeller appeals.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, 1 

### and exercise de novo
review over the District Court's order dismissing Rockefeller’s complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Price , 501 F.3d 271, 275 (3d Cir.

2007).
The District Court properly concluded that it lacked subjection matter
jurisdiction. A federal court has subject matter jurisdicti on over civil actions arising
under “the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States” (federal question
jurisdiction) and civil actions between citizens of different states with the amount in

1 

### The dismissal necessarily was without prejudice because the District Court did not (and could not) reach the merits of the complaint. There is no indication in the District Court’s order that the dismissal was without pre judice because of a defect in the pleading that could be cured by amendment. In any event, Rockefeller’s notice of appeal contains argument indicating his intention to stand on his complaint. See Borelli v. City of Reading , 532 F. 2d 950, 951

- 52 (3d Cir. 1976).3



### controversy exceeding the sum or value of $75,000 (dive rsity jurisdiction). 28 U.S.C. §§

1331, 1332(a).

Federal question jurisdiction exists only if a federal question is presented
on the face of the complaint. Club Comanche, Inc. v. Gov’t of V.I. , 278 F.3d 250, 259

(3d Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). In his complaint, Rockefeller alleged that Comcast
damaged his property, committed fraud and theft, overbilled for services, and
fraudulently advertised. None of these allegations presented a federal question pursuant

to § 1331.
Although it appears that t here is diversity of citizenship, as Rockefeller is a
citizen of New Jersey and Comcast is incorporated in Pennsylvania, the amount in
controversy does not exceed the sum or value of $75,000. The complaint demands only

$5,000. Thus, Rockefeller cannot es tablish diversity jurisdiction.

Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s order dismissing
Rockefeller’s complaint.