Court Opinion

ID: 9555658
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-14 18:01:35.101519+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:41:06.365206
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60518        Document: 00516856080             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/14/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                 United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                 Fifth Circuit

                                                                               FILED
                                                                         August 14, 2023
                                      No. 22-60518                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                    Summary Calendar                           Clerk

   Charles Lavel Stringer,

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Frito-Lay Corporation; Kroger Food Corporation;
   Pepsi Corporation, a Parent Company to Frito-Lay,

                                                                 Defendants—Appellees.

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of Mississippi
                                USDC No. 3:19-CV-1

   Before Smith, Dennis, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Plaintiff-Appellant Charles Stringer appeals the district court’s grant
   of Defendant-Appellees Frito-Lay Corporation, Kroger Food Corporation,
   and Pepsi Corporation’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter
   jurisdiction. We conclude that the district court did not commit reversible
   error and therefore AFFIRM.

         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60518      Document: 00516856080          Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/14/2023

                                    No. 22-60518

                                         I.
          In 2018, Frito-Lay announced its “They Win, You Score” Promotion
   (“Promotion”). Individuals were invited to participate by either purchasing
   specially marked Doritos or Tostitos products with an identifying code on the
   bag, or by calling a toll-free number to obtain a code without making a
   purchase. After the participant obtained a code, they visited the Promotion’s
   website to create an account. After logging into an account, and agreeing to
   the Official Rules of the Promotion, the participant could enter the code to
   receive an NFL Playoff Team Assignment and one entry into the Grand Prize
   drawing. If the participant’s NFL Playoff Team won their respective NFL
   game associated with the promotion, the participant was eligible to receive a
   reward—subject to verification. Additionally, the Official Rules provided:
          One (1) Grand Prize winner will be selected in a random
          drawing to be held on or about February 5, 2018, from among
          all eligible entries received by the Judges. Odds of winning the
          Grand Prize depend upon the number of eligible entries
          received.
   The Promotion’s Official Rules further provided that other rewards would
   be randomly awarded, but that reserved the right to add or substitute rewards
   of the same approximate retail value for any reason. The possible rewards
   included the Madden Ultimate Team (“MUT”) Pack, Pro Pack, or All
   Madden Pack; a $10 NFLShop.com online gift certificate; an NFLShop.com
   discount code for 15% off a purchase of $50.00 or more; and a digital coupon
   code for a 2L Pepsi with the purchase of a large Papa John’s Pizza.
         Stringer alleges that at some point in January 2018, he purchased
   Doritos, entered the relevant code on the Promotion website, and was
   informed that “if the Philadelphia Eagles [win] the Super Bowl [LII], you
   [will win] a trip to the Super Bowl [LIII].” Later, on February 7, 2018,
   Stringer alleges he received an email that stated:

                                          2
Case: 22-60518      Document: 00516856080            Page: 3    Date Filed: 08/14/2023

                                      No. 22-60518

          You are a potential winner of the following reward in the ‘They
          Win. You Score!’ Super Bowl Edition, pending verification
          against the Official Rules.
          MUT Pack: All Madden Pack
          Please go to [website] within 5 days to redeem your reward. If
          you win another reward in this promotion, we will use the
          address you provided this time and you will not receive another
          email.
   Stringer alleges that when he received the above-mentioned email, he
   believed that he had won the Grand Prize tickets to the Super Bowl. Stringer
   also alleges that he entered a second Promotion code on the website, which
   told him Stringer that he could choose between an Xbox or another,
   unknown, prize. Stringer chose the Xbox. Afterwards, Stringer could not
   figure out how to redeem his prizes due to issues with the website.
          After failing to satisfactorily resolve his issues, Stringer filed this
   lawsuit, alleging claims of fraud, gross negligence, intentional infliction of
   emotional distress, and perjury. The magistrate judge directed Stringer to file
   an affidavit setting forth the citizenship of each party, the financial value of
   his case, and the specific, underlying factual basis for his damages that
   allegedly exceeded the jurisdictional requirement. Stringer subsequently
   filed an amended complaint, which did not comply with the magistrate
   judge’s order. The district court then directed that Stringer should file
   another amended complaint that set forth the basis for the court’s subject-
   matter jurisdiction, including the specific citizenship of all parties, a sworn
   affidavit regarding the financial value of the case, and the specific factual basis
   for his claims for damages. The order also advised Stringer that “merely
   claiming an amount of [$75,000] is insufficient.” Stringer did not file any
   additional pleadings or affidavits. On May 22, 2019, Frito-Lay and Pepsi filed
   a joint motion to dismiss; Kroger did the same on June 11, 2019. The district

                                            3
Case: 22-60518      Document: 00516856080            Page: 4    Date Filed: 08/14/2023

                                      No. 22-60518

   court dismissed the case after determining that it lacked subject matter
   jurisdiction.
                                          II.
          The district court’s ruling on subject matter jurisdiction is reviewed
   de novo. Adams Joseph Res. (M) Sdn. Bhd. V. CAN Metals Ltd., 919 F.3d 856,
   862 (5th Cir. 2019). This court may affirm the district court’s dismissal on
   any basis sustained by the record. Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364 (1982);
   Turner v. AmericaHomeKey Inc., 514 F. App’x. 513, 515 (5th Cir. 2013).
   Plaintiff is acting pro se, which requires courts to liberally construe their
   filings and pleadings. Boag, 454 U.S. at 365. However, we need not “act as
   counsel or paralegal.” Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004).
                                          III.
          Courts have a “continuing obligation to examine the basis for
   jurisdiction.” MCG, Inc., v. Great W. Energy Corp., 896 F.2d 170, 173 (5th
   Cir. 1990); FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3). Further, when subject-matter
   jurisdiction issues are raised, the court must address them before looking to
   the merits of the case. Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir.
   2001). In order for a federal court to have jurisdiction under diversity of
   citizenship, “the matter in controversy [must] exceed[] the sum or value of
   $75,000” and be between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
   When analyzing the citizenship of a corporation, the corporation is deemed a
   citizen of every state in which it has been incorporated and the state where it
   has its principal place of business. Id. § 1332(c)(1). The burden of proof is on
   the party attempting to invoke the court’s jurisdiction. Smith v. Toyota Motor
   Corp., 978 F.3d 280, 282 (5th Cir. 2020) (citing Stafford v. Mobile Oil Corp.,
   945 F.2d 803, 804 (5th Cir. 1991)). The party asserting diversity jurisdiction
   “must distinctively and affirmatively allege [] the citizenship of the parties.”
   Id. (alteration in original) (internal citations omitted).

                                           4
Case: 22-60518      Document: 00516856080          Page: 5    Date Filed: 08/14/2023

                                    No. 22-60518

          Despite a direct request from the district court, Stringer failed to
   adequately allege the citizenship of the Defendants in this case. Stringer’s
   amended complaint, read in the light most favorable to Stringer, identifies
   the following: Stringer is a resident of the State of Mississippi, Defendant
   Frito-Lay is a corporation whose principal place of business is the State of
   Texas, Defendant Pepsi is a corporation whose principal place of business is
   the State of New York, and Defendant Kroger is a corporation whose
   principal place of business is the State of Ohio. However, Stringer does not
   specify the state of incorporation of any of the parties. We have previously
   held that where a plaintiff failed to allege both the state of incorporation and
   principal place of business under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c), diversity jurisdiction
   was not established. See Leigh v. Nat’l Aeronautics & Space Admin., 860 F.2d
   652, 653 (5th Cir. 1988).
          In addition to failing to properly allege diversity of citizenship,
   Stringer failed to adequately support his allegation that the amount in
   controversy exceeded the $75,000 threshold. The district court, with no
   obligation to do so, advised Stringer that merely pleading an amount in
   controversy larger than $75,000 would not suffice. Stringer did not respond
   to this instruction in his response to Defendants’ Motion to dismiss, nor did
   he submit an amended pleading. Accepting the facts of Stringer’s pleadings
   as true and looking at the Promotion’s Official Rules, the value of the Grand
   Prize that Stringer allegedly won had an approximate retail value of
   $8,950.00. Although Stringer’s amended complaint references Defendants’
   “combined assets of over one billion dollars” and notes that he is “seeking
   over million dollars against each” without any further justification, such
   allegations are insufficient to meet the $75,000 jurisdictional requirement.
          Finally, Stringer’s amended complaint also alleges violations of the
   federal perjury statute—18 U.S.C. § 1621—in an attempt to assert federal
   question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. However, while 18 U.S.C. §

                                          5
Case: 22-60518      Document: 00516856080            Page: 6   Date Filed: 08/14/2023

                                      No. 22-60518

   1621 provides a criminal penalty for violations of the statute, the statute does
   not allow for civil enforcement and therefore cannot be the basis of federal
   question jurisdiction in a civil lawsuit.
                                          IV.
          For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s
   judgment.

                                           6