Gwendolyn Spence v. Ford Motor Company, No. 15-2255 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2255 GWENDOLYN A. SPENCE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY; FORD MOTOR COMPANY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:15-cv-00069-AWA-LRL) Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: February 29, 2016 Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gwendolyn A. Spence, Appellant Pro Se. Barry Dorans, WOLCOTT RIVERS & GATES, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Paul D. Hudson, MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK & STONE, PLC, Kalamazoo, Michigan, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gwendolyn A. Spence appeals the district court’s order dismissing her complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. We affirm. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Demetres v. East West Const., Inc., 776 F.3d 271, 272 (4th Cir. 2015). A plaintiff has the burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction. Id. Spence’s complaint alleges federal-question and intellectualproperty jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a) (2012), but her claims are all based on state law and do not contain any intellectual-property claims. Although the parties are diverse, Spence did not allege a dollar amount in her complaint. See JTH Tax, Inc. v. Frashier, 624 F.3d 635, 638 (4th Cir. 2010) (“Courts generally determine the amount in controversy by reference to the plaintiff’s complaint.”); see also Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Glob. Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 570-71 (2004) (“It has long been the case that the jurisdiction of the court depends upon the state of things at the time of the action brought.”). Thus, we conclude that the district court correctly found itself without subjectmatter jurisdiction. Accordingly, although we grant Spence’s motion for leave to file untimely opposition reply brief, we affirm the judgment of 2 the district court. facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
