Fisher v. Direct TV, Inc.

• Decision Date: 16 May 2013
• Docket Number: CV 13-68-M-DWM-JCL
• Parties: RONALD FISHER, Plaintiff, v. DIRECT TV, INC. and DOES ONE through ONE HUNDRED, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Montana

RONALD FISHER, Plaintiff, v. DIRECT TV, INC. and DOES ONE through ONE HUNDRED, Defendants.

CV 13-68-M-DWM-JCL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION

DATED May 16, 2013

ORDER

Plaintiff Fisher is proceeding pro se. After examining Fisher's pleading to consider whether this action can survive dismissal under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah C. Lynch filed Findings and a Recommendation. No objection has been filed to Judge Lynch's recommendation that Fisher's complaint be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Court reviews the findings and recommendations of a United States Magistrate Judge for clear error. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mack, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). Clear error is present only if the Court is left with a "definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." United States v. Syrax, 235 F.3d 422, 427 (9th Cir. 2000).

Plaintiff Fisher commenced this action to resolve an ongoing dispute withhis television service provider, Defendant Direct TV, Inc. Specifically, Fisher alleges Direct TV overcharged him for services and made unauthorized withdrawals from his checking account. Fisher seeks to recover these actual damages as well as punitive damages. Read in the light most favorable to Fisher, his complaint alleges a total loss of $327.00 he seeks to recover as actual damages. His complaint does not demand punitive damages in a specific amount.

After a review of Judge Lynch's Findings and Recommendation, I find no clear error. Plaintiff fails to identify a sufficient basis for this Court's jurisdiction to hear the complaint. Federal courts must independently examine the asserted basis for jurisdiction over a complaint. FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990).

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree. It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted). A district court may dismiss an action sua sponte whenever it appears jurisdiction is lacking. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

Diversity of citizenship, as asserted in the complaint, is an insufficient jurisdictional basis for this Court to hear Plaintiff's claims. District courts havejurisdiction over civil matters where the action is between citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Complete diversity of citizenship between each plaintiff and each defendant is required. Williams v. United Airlines, Inc., 500 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 553 (2005)). Iin an original federal action invoking diversity jurisdiction a plaintiff's inclusion of fictitious defendants destroys that jurisdiction and renders the action subject to dismissal. Garter-Bare Co. v. Munsingwear, Inc., 650 F.2d 975, 981 (9th Cir. 1981). Here, Fisher has asserted claims against...