Court Opinion

ID: 9951947
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-19 16:02:03.427145+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:37:45.490793
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

TONY E. BELL,                                          )
                                                       )
                       Plaintiff,                      )
                                                       )
               v.                                      )       Civil Action No. 24-0392 (UNA)
                                                       )
SCF INVESTMENT ADVISORS, INC., et al.,                 )
                                                       )
                       Defendants.                     )

                                    MEMORANDUM OPINION
       This matter is before the Court on review of Tony E. Bell’s application to proceed in

forma pauperis (Dkt. #2), his emergency motion (Dkt. #4) and pro se complaint (Dkt. #1. The

Court GRANTS the application, DENIES the motion as moot, and DISMISSES the complaint

without prejudice.

       Plaintiff, a resident of Sacramento, California, brings this action against two corporations,

both conducting business in San Diego, California. See Compl. at 1-2. His claims appear to

arise from a business relationship gone wrong, see generally id., Ex. (ECF No. 1-1 at 1-3), and

plaintiff demands compensatory and punitive damages, see id., Ex. (ECF No. 1-1 at 3).

       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 these statutes, federal jurisdiction is available

when a “federal question” is presented or when 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)). A party

                                                  1
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).

        This case does not present a federal question and plaintiff invokes diversity jurisdiction.

See Compl. at 3. Because all the parties reside or conduct business in California, even though

the amount in controversy exceeds the $75,000 threshold, plaintiff fails to demonstrate complete

diversity between the parties. Therefore, the Court must dismiss the complaint for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction.

        A separate order will issue.

DATE: March 18, 2024                                    RANDOLPH D. MOSS
                                                        United States District Judge

                                                   2