Bryant v. Kinder et al, No. 1:2014cv06637 - Document 13 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The complaint is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk is directed to close this case and to close all pending motions. SO ORDERED. (See Order.) (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 12/23/2014) (ajs)

Download PDF
Bryant v. Kinder et al Doc. 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ANNE BRYANT, Plaintiff, 14 Cv. 6637(JGK) - against - MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER CLIFFORD A. "FORD" KINDER ET AL. , Defendants. JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge: The plaintiff, appearing pro se, brings this action invoking the Court's federal question jurisdiction, alleging claims of unfair competition, business identity theft, conversion, common law fraud, and fraudulent transfer. On October 3, 2014, the Court ordered the plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. WL 4958077 See Bryant v. Kinder, No. 14cv6637, 2014 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2014). On October 29, 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which asserts that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides the Court with subject matter jurisdiction. The Court has an independent obligation to determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over this action. See Gonzalez v. Thaler, 132 S. Ct. 641, 648 (2012). The plaintiff's complaint does not identify a basis for federal question jurisdiction under§ 1331. To invoke federal 1 Dockets.Justia.com question jurisdiction, the plaintiff's claims must arise "under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 1331. "[A] case can 'aris[e] under' Most directly, federal law in two ways. a case arises under federal law when federal law creates the cause of action asserted." Ct. 1059, 1064 (2013). Gunn v. Minton, 133 S. Or "federal jurisdiction over a state law claim will lie if a federal issue is: raised, § (2) actually disputed, (3) (1) necessarily substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federalstate balance approved by Congress." Id. at 1065. The Amended Complaint does not identify a federal law that "creates the cause of action asserted." The Amended Complaint cites three sections in title 18 of the United States Code-18 U.S.C. §§ 1028, 1343, 2314, and 2315-that create federal crimes. These sections make it a crime to commit identity theft, to commit wire fraud, stolen goods, and to transport, respectively. and to sell or receive None of these sections includes a civil cause of action, and therefore do not provide this Court with jurisdiction under 2012 WL 201847, at *l § § 1331. See Ford v. Sims, No.12cv67, (D. Conn. Jan. 23, 2012) 1343 does not provide a basis for Novikova v. _I_R::;, No. Sept. 28, 2007) for § § 1331 jurisdiction); 04cv'.:d24, 2001 WL 2d9LllJl, (holding that § (holding that at'~ (1'.U.N.Y. 1028 does not provide a basis 1331 jurisdiction); Local 1 FLM-FJC v. Caputo, 2 No. 86cv3839, 1988 WL 13774, at *2 (holding that § 2314 does not provide a basis for jurisdiction); cf. Piorkowski v. 21037353, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 1988) Parziale, No. (D. Conn. May 7, 2003) § 1331 02cv963, 2003 WL (holding that § 2315 does not provide a private right of action) The plaintiff's remaining claims arise entirely under state law, and these claims do not necessarily raise a substantial and disputed question of federal law. CONCLUSION The complaint is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk is directed to close this case and to close all pending motions. SO ORDERED. Dated: New York, New York December 23, 2014 , J' n G. Koeltl \, United States District Judge / 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.