Court Opinion

ID: 9386977
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-14 14:01:06.191727+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:10.421586
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                             FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

PRINCESS MARIA SPENCER,                        )
                                               )
               Plaintiff,                      )
                                               )
       v.                                      )       Civil Action No. 23-00781 (UNA)
                                               )
                                               )
ALAMO CAR RENTAL,                              )
                                               )
                Defendant.                     )

                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION

       This matter, filed pro se, is before the Court on its initial review of Plaintiff’s Complaint,

ECF No. 1, and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. The Court will

grant the application and dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

       The subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited and is set forth

generally at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under those statutes, federal jurisdiction is available

only when a “federal question” is presented or the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount

in controversy exceeds $75,000. “For jurisdiction to exist under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, there must be

complete diversity between the parties, which is to say that the plaintiff may not be a citizen of the

same state as any defendant.” Bush v. Butler, 521 F. Supp. 2d 63, 71 (D.D.C. 2007) (citing Owen

Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373-74 (1978)). It is a “well-established rule”

that in order for an action to proceed in diversity, the citizenship requirement must be “assessed at

the time the suit is filed.” Freeport-McMoRan, Inc. v. K N Energy, Inc., 498 U.S. 426, 428 (1991).

To that end, “the citizenship of every party to the action must be distinctly alleged and cannot be

                                                   1
established presumptively or by mere inference.” Meng v. Schwartz, 305 F. Supp. 2d 49, 55

(D.D.C. 2004).

       A party seeking relief in the district court must at least plead facts that bring the suit within

the court’s jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Failure to plead such facts warrants dismissal of

the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

       In the single-page complaint, Plaintiff, a District of Columbia resident, alleges that she

“picked up” a rental car “at Alamo Rent a Car in Nashville International Airport (BNA).” The car

was a blue Cadillac crossover that was left there for Plaintiff “as a gift.” Plaintiff noticed that “the

paperwork had been taken out [of] the vehicle.” Apparently, when she “took [the car] back in and

contacted the manager to ask for the paperwork, the vehicle was stolen.”                Plaintiff seeks

“restitution” and “unlimited access to rent a cars at Alamo.”

       Plaintiff has not pleaded a jurisdictional basis, which is reason enough to dismiss the

complaint. Nevertheless, no federal question is presented, and Plaintiff has not pleaded sufficient

facts, including the threshold amount in controversy, to proceed under the diversity statute.

Therefore, this case will be dismissed by separate order.

                                                       _________/s/___________
                                                       TANYA S. CHUTKAN
Date: April 12, 2023                                   United States District Judge

                                                   2