Shepard v. Rynning

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE 10 11 DAVID JOSHUA SHEPARD, CASE NO. 2:22-cv-01331-TL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO v. DISMISS 13 NATHAN RYNNING and US BANK 14 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, 15 Defendants. 16

17 The Court, having reviewed Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 25) to which 18 Plaintiff has filed no opposition, GRANTS the Motion and DISMISSES this action without leave to 19 amend. 20 The Court previously explained that this is a Court of limited jurisdiction that may only 21 hear certain kinds of cases. See Dkt. No. 10 at 2 (citing Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, 139 22 S. Ct. 1743, 1746 (2019) (citation omitted), rehearing denied, 140 S. Ct. 17)). The Court 23 explained that to hear Plaintiff’s case, he needed to show the Court had subject matter 24 jurisdiction over his claims. Id. The Court noted that typically, this would require Plaintiff to 1 pursue claims arising under federal law or claims arising under state law where the parties were 2 residents of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Id. at 2–3. The 3 Court noted that Plaintiff asserted only a state law negligence claim and explained that it lacked 4 subject matter jurisdiction because the Parties were not diverse and the amount in controversy

5 fell far below $75,000. See id. The Court granted Plaintiff one further opportunity to cure this 6 defect. 7 Although Plaintiff has amended his complaint, the Court continues not to have subject 8 matter jurisdiction over this matter. Plaintiff again alleges a single claim of negligence under 9 state law. See Dkt. No. 18 (amended complaint). Plaintiff identifies that he is a resident of 10 Washington, as is Defendant Rynning. See id.; Dkt. No. 4 (identifying Rynning as a Washington 11 citizen). There is therefore a lack of diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). And the 12 amount in controversy continues to be far below the $75,000 threshold. Id. Plaintiff again 13 demands $7,200 in damages and treble damages. Dkt. No. 18 at 4. Even with the addition of 14 treble damages, the amount in controversy does not satisfy the minimum. Defendants are

15 therefore correct that Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to satisfy the requirements for diversity 16 jurisdiction and that the Court otherwise lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The Court therefore 17 GRANTS the Motion and DISMISSES the amended complaint (Dkt. No. 18). 18 Because the Court has granted Plaintiff leave to amend and he has failed to cure the lack 19 of subject matter jurisdiction, the Court finds that any further amendment would be futile. And to 20 the extent that Plaintiff has moved to a different state (see Dkt. No. 33), that does not alter the 21 Court’s decision for two reasons. First, the Court assesses jurisdiction at the time of the initial 22 complaint was filed and a change in residence after filing does not cure a defect in diversity 23 jurisdiction. See Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Glob. Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 570 (2004). Second,

24 1 even if the parties were diverse, the amount in controversy does not exceed the $75,000 2 threshold. Further amendment would be futile. 3 The Court therefore ORDERS the following: 4 1. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. No further amendments to Plaintiff’s

5 complaint will be permitted, and this matter shall be terminated. 6 2. Plaintiff’s pending motions at Dkt. Nos. 20, 29, 31, and 33 will be STRICKEN AS 7 MOOT. 8 The Clerk is DIRECTED to provide copies of this Order to Plaintiff and all Counsel. 9 Dated this 21st day of March 2023. 10 A 11 Tana Lin United States District Judge 12

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24