SPENCER v. ALAMO CAR RENTAL, No. 1:2023cv00781 - Document 3 (D.D.C. 2023)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 04/12/2023. (zcb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
SPENCER v. ALAMO CAR RENTAL Doc. 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PRINCESS MARIA SPENCER, Plaintiff, v. ALAMO CAR RENTAL, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 23-00781 (UNA) 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 Dockets.Justia.com 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 United States District Judge Date: April 12, 2023 2
]]>
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.
