2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 12-14-2005 

# M al ari k v . D inunno E ntr Inc P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-2535

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you 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 at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" M al ar i k v . Dinunno E ntr Inc " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 113. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/113NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 05- 2535 J AM E S M . M AL AR I K, A ppel l ant

v. D IN U N N O E N T E R P R IS E S , IN C ., P e n n sy lv a n ia L i c e n s e R - 1 1 0 , o w n e d a n d o p e r a t e d b y A n to n io a n d S u s a n D in u n n o , h u s b a n d a n d w if e , a/k/ a Toni nos L ounge O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt Fort he W es t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D . C . C i v. N o. 05- cv- 00036) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Thom as M . H ar di m an Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

D ece m ber13, 2005 B efor e: B A R R Y , ST A PL E T O N and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed D ece m ber14, 2005) OP I NI ON
P E R C UR I AM A p p e llan t Ja m e s M . M a lar ik , a re sid e n t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia, f

iled a c iv il co m p lain t in U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia a g a in st a Penns y l vani a bus i nes s and i t s ow ner - oper at or s , al l egi ng per s onal i nj ur i es . T he D i s t r i ct2

C our tdi s m i s s ed the ca s e w i t houtpr ej udi ce f orl ack of

fede r al s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on i n an order ent ered on A pri l 14 , 20 05 . M al ari k ap peals . W e w i l l aff

i r m . O urr evi ew of the D i s t r i ctC our t ' s di s m i s s al of a c om pl ai ntfor l ack o f subjectm at t er j uri sdi ct i on i s pl enary . G ou l d E l ect roni cs, Inc. v. U nit ed S t at es, 220 F. 3d 169, 176 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . Feder al s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on i s l acki ng fort he
re a s o n s g iv e n b yth e D is tr ic t C o u rt . F e d e ra l c o u rt s a re c o u rt s o f lim ite d ju ri s d ic tio n . K okkonen v. G uar di an Li fe I ns . C o. of A m er i ca, 511 U . S. 375, 377 ( 1994) . Subj ect
m at t erj ur i s di ct i on i s confe r r ed w her e the part i es ar e fr om di ffe r ents t at es , t hati s , di ver s e, and the amounti n contr over s yexce eds $75, 000, 28 U . S. C . § 1332, and al s o w hen a f e d e ra l q u e s tio n is p re s e n te d , 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 3 1 . M a lar ik ’s c o m p lain t, i f

it ca n b e m a in tain e d a t all, ca n o n lyb e m a in tain e d in sta te cour t , beca us e j ur i s di ct i on bas ed on di ver s i t yof ci t i zens hi p i s notavai l abl e w hen the par t i es ar e al l Penns y l vani a ci t i zens orbus i nes s es , as t heyar e her e. M or eover , no fede r al q u e stio n is p re se n ted b ya p e rso n a l in ju rylaw su it th a t alle g e s o n lyc o m m o n law to rts agai ns ta pr i vat e part y , and does notal l ege a depr i vat i on of fe der al cons t i tut i onal r i ght s or the e lem en ts of

a c au se o f a cti o n u n d er a fe d era l st atute. W e a g ree w ith the D istri ct C o u rt t hatM al ar i k’ s s ui t , i nvol vi ng i nj ur i es s uffe r ed as a r es ul tof an a l t er cat i on ata bar , does
n o t, an d c o u ld n o t, sa tisf yth e ju risd ictio n a l p re re q u isites f o r su it i n f

e d e ra l co u rt. W e w i l l aff

i r m t he or derof the D i s t r i ctC our tdi s m i s s i ng t he ac t i on w i t hout pr ej udi ce f

orl ack of

s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on.