Goulsby v. EAN Holdings LLC

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: June 6, 2025
• Docket: 4:25-cv-05053
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 FILED IN THE 3 EASTER U N . S D . I S D T I R S I T C R T I C O T F C W O A U S R H T I NGTON Jun 06, 2025 4 5 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 10 RAI A. GOULSBY, No. 4:25-cv-05053-SAB 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL 13 WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 EAN HOLDINGS, LLC; and HEATHER 15 ROPER, 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff Rai A. Goulsby, an individual currently incarcerated at the 19 Washington State Penitentiary, filed a pro se Complaint on April 30, 2025. ECF 20 No. 1. Plaintiff asserts breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good 21 faith, and reckless infliction of emotional distress claims against Defendants 22 stemming from a rental car agreement that he entered in 2016, his arrest in 2018, 23 and trial in 2019. ECF No. 1 at 1–10. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive 24 damages, and asks for a jury trial. Id. at 9–10. By separate Order the Court has 25 granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in form pauperis. Defendants have not been 26 served. 27 28 1 DISCUSSION 2 Federal courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. 3 Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A federal court presumes 4 a civil action lies outside its limited jurisdiction and the burden to prove otherwise 5 rests on the party asserting that jurisdiction exists. Id. Federal courts have two 6 types of subject matter jurisdiction: (1) federal question and (2) diversity. 28 7 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. 8 Plaintiff asserts that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action 9 based on diversity, “since EAN Holdings, LLC is a Missouri citizen, Plaintiff is a 10 Washington citizen, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, 28 USC sec 11 1332(a).” ECF No. 1 at 1. Courts are obligated to consider sua sponte issues 12 regarding subject-matter jurisdiction. See Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 141 13 (2012). Therefore, the court must determine whether it has diversity jurisdiction 14 over Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 15 United States District Courts have original subject-matter jurisdiction over 16 cases between citizens of different states and in which the amount in controversy 17 exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). A plaintiff 18 invoking a federal court’s diversity jurisdiction has the burden of establishing that 19 § 1332(a)’s diversity of citizenship and amount-in-controversy requirements have 20 been satisfied. See Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 96–97 (2010). For a case to 21 qualify for federal jurisdiction under § 1332, there must be complete diversity of 22 citizenship between the opposing parties—in other words, all of the plainitffs must 23 be citizens of different states than all of the defendants. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. 24 Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 553 (2005) (“[Section] 1332 ... requir[es] 25 complete diversity: In a case with multiple plaintiffs and multiple defendants, the 26 presence in the action of a single plaintiff from the same [s]tate as a single 27 defendant deprives the district court of original diversity jurisdiction over the entire 28 action.”); Kuntz v. Lamar Corp., 385 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2004). 1 Here, Plaintiff states that he is a resident of Spokane, Washington, and Defendant Roper, at all times mentioned in the Complaint, was a store manager in 3|| Spokane Valley, Washington. ECF No. 1 at 2. Thus, Plaintiff's action lacks complete diversity of citizenship, and this Court does not have subject matter 5|| jurisdiction to proceed. No other basis for subject matter jurisdiction exists for this case to proceed in federal court. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED: 8 1. Plaintiff's Complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED without prejudice for 9 lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 10 2. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal of 11 this Order would not be taken in good faith and would lack any arguable 12 basis in law or fact. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter this order, enter judgment, provide copies to Plaintiff, and CLOSE the file. 15 DATED this 6th day of June 2025. 16

Shin Basher Stan Bastian 0 Chief United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

ADTATD AT TIOGA ITOO AT WITTTATIT pnNTHImirn 4