Shuang Long Shi v. Arrow Truck Sales

70 F. App'x 609

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
• Decided: August 11, 2003
• Docket: No. 02-9357
• Status: Published

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Shuang Long Shi appeals pro se from a September 25, 2002 order entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Daniels, /.), dismissing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) his claims against Defendants-Appellees Arrow Truck Sales, Inc. (“Arrow”), and Volvo Group North America, Inc. (“Volvo”).

The district court ruled that [1] personal jurisdiction over Arrow did not exist in New York; [2] subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity jurisdiction was lacking because [a] complete diversity was lacking as Volvo’s principal place of business was in New York, which was also plaintiffs State of citizenship, and [b] the amount-in-controversy requirement was not satisfied; and [3] subject matter jurisdiction based on a federal question was lacking because [a] under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, neither Arrow nor Volvo was a state actor, and [b] under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, plaintiff failed to set forth facts sufficient to support the claim.

We affirm for substantially the reasons set forth by the district court in its Order dated September 25, 2002.¹

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

1 . Plaintiff failed to assert facts to maintain a § 1981 claim against Volvo. On plaintiff's § 1981 claim against Arrow, however, we need not and do not reach the issue of whether the district court properly dismissed for a failure to plead sufficient facts as we agree with the district court’s dismissal of the claims against Arrow for lack of personal jurisdiction.