Talib v. AAA Insurance Auto Club Group et al, No. 1:2017cv02514 - Document 3 (N.D. Ohio 2017)

Court Description: Memorandum of Opinion and Order dismissing this action for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. The dismissal is without prejudice to any claims the plaintiff may properly bring in a state court on the facts alleged. The Court further certifies that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge Donald C. Nugent on 12/6/2017 (C,KA)
Download PDF
Talib v. AAA Insurance Auto Club Group et al Doc. 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Rakhshanda Y. Talib, Plaintiff, v. AAA Insurance, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:17 CV 2514 JUDGE DONALD C. NUGENT MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER Pro se Plaintiff Rakhshanda Talib has filed this in forma pauperis civil action against “AAA Insurance The Auto Club Group” and Katherine Probert, Agent. (See Doc. No. 1.) She asserts claims for property damage in the amount of $1,805.13, and seeks punitive damages in the amount of $5,415.39, in connection with damages to her car that occurred in February 2017. She alleges she has a right to seek recovery for the damages on the basis of insurance she has with “AAA Auto Insurance (aka Auto Club Group, Independence Ohio, Dearborn Michigan, Chicago Illinois).” (See id. at 3-4.) Federal courts, however, are courts of limited jurisdiction and must dismiss any case in which they determine federal subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking. See Nagalingam v. Wilson, Sowards, Bowling & Costanzo, 8 F. App'x 486, 487, 2001 WL 493392 (6th Cir. May 1, 2001); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, [it] must dismiss the action.”). This case must dismissed for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. Dockets.Justia.com The basic statutory grants of federal subject-matter jurisdiction are contained in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513 (2006). A plaintiff may invoke federal question subject-matter jurisdiction under § 1331 when she pleads a colorable claim “arising under” the Constitution or laws of the United States. Id.; 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The face of the plaintiff’s complaint does not present a claim arising under federal law. The only discernible claims alleged in the complaint are damage claims arising under state law. Federal subject-matter jurisdiction may be asserted over state-law claims under §1332 when there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §1332. The plaintiff’s filings, however, do not demonstrate a basis for an exercise of federal diversity jurisdiction as they do not demonstrate that all of the parties are of diverse citizenship, or that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Conclusion Accordingly, this action is dismissed for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. The dismissal is without prejudice to any claims the plaintiff may properly bring in a state court on the facts alleged. The Court further certifies that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3). IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Donald C. Nugent DONALD C. NUGENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: _December 6, 2017___ -2-