2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

4-18-2011

David Rockefeller v. Comcast Corp

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 10-4494

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2011 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"David Rockefeller v. Comcast Corp" (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 1421.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_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HLD-109(February 2011) NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 by 
2

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. § 1291,1and 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 jurisdiction 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 prejudice 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 (diversity 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 there 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 establish diversity jurisdiction.

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

Rockefeller’s complaint.