Hill v. W.H.H. Trice and Company

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: January 30, 2014
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2014-0144
• Status: Published

Opinion

FILED

UNITED sTATEs 1)1sTR1CT coURT JAN 3 0 2014 FoR THE I)ISTRICT oF COLUMBIA ccan<, u_s_ instant & B,,,k,,, w Courts for the District of Co|u¥nblh

ERIC RODNEY HlLL, ) )

Plaintiff, )

)

v ) Civil Action No. !%°’ /

TRICE AND COMPANY, ) )

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Federal district courts have jurisdiction in civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In addition, federal district courts have jurisdiction over civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000, and the suit is between citizens of different states. See 28 U.S.C. § l332(a).

The the plaintiff brings this action against W.H.H. Trice & Co. demanding "a copy of his lease so he can use [it] as a reference[] to get another apartment." Compl. at l. His single conclusory statement that the defendant "violated [his] civil, constitutional and 631 Amendment" rights, z`a’. at 2, does not articulate a viable constitutional claim for the purpose of establishing federal question jurisdiction. Notwithstanding the defendant’s business office in Virginia, the the plaintiff does not demonstrate that the matter in controversy exceeds the $75,000 threshold. He thus fails to establish diversity jurisdiction. Accordingly, the complaint will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

An Order consistent with this Memorandu

DATE:Y@…? /3/ 2/0[§;

nited t tes District Judge