Garrett v. Bbva Compass Bank

Opinion

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAY 17 2019

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U.S. District and Bankruptcy Courts

Wanda Jean Garrett, ) Plaintiff, Vv. Civil Action No. 19-1270 (UNA) BBVA Compass Bank et al, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff's pro se complaint and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the application and dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring the court to dismiss an action “at any time” it determines that subject matter jurisdiction is wanting).

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 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)). 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. Plaintiff is a resident of Dallas, Texas, who has sued a bank and other defendants located in Texas for $10 million. See Compl. at 1-2, 6, Plaintiff is not invoking a federal question, see id. at 3, and she has not satisfied her burden “of pleading the citizenship of each and every party to the action.” Novak v. Capital Mgmt. & Dev. Corp., 452 F.3d 902, 906 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), Given the information supplied in the complaint, diversity jurisdiction appears lacking because the plaintiff and most if not all of the defendants are located in Texas. Therefore, this case will be dismissed. A separate order accompanies this

Memorandum Opinion.

(lh. Kollte,~ Katt,

A } Date: May [@_,2019 United States District Judge /