Court Opinion

ID: 2659568
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-04-03 02:48:48.378902+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:36:40.992490
License: Public Domain

FILED

UNITED sTATEs 1)1sTR1CT coURT JAN 3 0 2014
FoR THE I)ISTRICT oF COLUMBIA ccan<, u_s_ instant & B,,,k,,, w
Courts for the District of Co|u¥nblh

ERIC RODNEY HlLL, )
)

Plaintiff, )

)

v ) Civil Action No. !%°’ /

)

 TRICE AND COMPANY, )
)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Federal district courts have jurisdiction in civil actions arising under the Constitution,
laws or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In addition, federal district courts
have jurisdiction over civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000, and the suit
is between citizens of different states. See 28 U.S.C. § l332(a).

The the plaintiff brings this action against W.H.H. Trice & Co. demanding "a copy of his
lease so he can use [it] as a reference[] to get another apartment." Compl. at l. His single
conclusory statement that the defendant "violated [his] civil, constitutional and 631 Amendment"
rights, z`a’. at 2, does not articulate a viable constitutional claim for the purpose of establishing
federal question jurisdiction. Notwithstanding the defendant’s business office in Virginia, the
the plaintiff does not demonstrate that the matter in controversy exceeds the $75,000 threshold.
He thus fails to establish diversity jurisdiction. Accordingly, the complaint will be dismissed for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

An Order consistent with this Memorandu

DATE:Y@…? /3/ 2/0[§;

  
   

nited t tes District Judge