Tucker v. Bbva Compass Bank

District of Columbia

Tucker v. Bbva Compass Bank

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedMay 22, 2019

DocketCivil Action No. 2019-1207

StatusPublished

This text of Tucker v. Bbva Compass Bank (Tucker v. Bbva Compass Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tucker v. Bbva Compass Bank, (D.D.C. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

FILED

MAY 2 2 2019 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Courts frie Distt of Columb Eddie L. Tucker, ) Plaintiff, Vv. Civil Action No. 19-1207 (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 Desoto, Texas, who has sued a bank and other defendants located in Texas for $10 million. See Compl. at 1-2, 6. Plaintiff has not identified a federal question, see id. at 4, and he has not satisfied his 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 of the defendants are located in Texas. Therefore, this case will be dismissed. A separate order accompanies this

Memorandum Opinion.

« CW dla Vit

Date: May /& ,2019 United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

FILED

MAY 2 2 2019 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Courts frie Distt of Columb Eddie L. Tucker, ) Plaintiff, Vv. Civil Action No. 19-1207 (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 Desoto, Texas, who has sued a bank and other defendants located in Texas for $10 million. See Compl. at 1-2, 6. Plaintiff has not identified a federal question, see id. at 4, and he has not satisfied his 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 of the defendants are located in Texas. Therefore, this case will be dismissed. A separate order accompanies this

Memorandum Opinion.

« CW dla Vit

Date: May /& ,2019 United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Tucker v. Bbva Compass Bank, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tucker-v-bbva-compass-bank-dcd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack