Bloxam v. Low Cost Interlock, Inc. et al
| Curtis Bloxam |
| Commissioner, State of Connecticut and Low Cost Interlock, Inc. |
| 3:2021cv00391 |
| March 22, 2021 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Kari A Dooley |
| P.I.: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1332 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 9, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 13
ELECTRONIC SUMMONS REISSUED in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and LR 4 as to *Low Cost Interlock, Inc.* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. Attorney *Anthony A. Wallace* *394 Yale Ave.* *New Haven, CT 06515*. (Fanelle, N.)
|
|
Request for Clerk to issue summons as to Low Cost Interlock, Inc.. (Wallace, Anthony)
|
|
Filing 12
ORDER. Upon review of Plaintiff's #10 Amended Complaint and in light of this Court's April 1, 2021 Order (ECF No. 9), it is clear that Plaintiff has elected to proceed exclusively against Low Cost Interlock, Inc. in federal court. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the State of Connecticut and the Commissioner of the State of Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles as Defendants. Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 4/12/2021. (D'Amato, Joseph)
|
|
Filing 11
ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and LR 4 as to *Low Cost Interlock, Inc.* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. Attorney *Anthony A. Wallace* *394 Yale Ave* *New Haven, CT 06515*. (Fanelle, N.)
|
|
Request for Clerk to issue summons as to Low Cost Interlock, Inc.. (Wallace, Anthony)
|
|
Filing 10
AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Plaintiffs, filed by Curtis Bloxam.(Wallace, Anthony)
|
|
Filing 9
ORDER. On March 31, 2021, Plaintiff filed an #8 Amended Complaint, which the Court construes as Plaintiff's response to the Court's March 23, 2021 Order to Show Cause. (ECF No. 6). Plaintiff continues to misapprehend the scope of this Court's jurisdiction. As the Court previously indicated, diversity jurisdiction exists only where there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties - i.e., when all plaintiffs are citizens of different states than all defendants. See 28 U.S.C. 1332(a); Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 89 (2005). "[I]f any plaintiff shares citizenship of the same state as any defendant, complete diversity does not exist, and diversity jurisdiction is lacking." Gurney's Inn Resort & Spa Ltd. v. Benjamin, 743 F. Supp. 2d 117, 120 (E.D.N.Y. 2010). Here, Plaintiff, a citizen of the State of Connecticut, brings this action against two non-diverse defendants: the State of Connecticut and the Commissioner of the State of Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles. Thus, diversity jurisdiction is lacking. To the extent Plaintiff relies on supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367 as a mechanism for asserting this Court's jurisdiction over his claims against the non-diverse defendants, such reliance is misplaced. Where the Court has "original jurisdiction founded solely on [diversity, the Court] shall not have supplemental jurisdiction... over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under [Rule 20] of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure... when exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements [for diversity jurisdiction]." 28 U.S.C. 1367(b). Therefore, because Plaintiff only invokes original jurisdiction founded on diversity with respect to his claims against Low Cost Interlock, Inc., the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his claims against the non-diverse defendants because doing so would be, as discussed above, inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements for diversity jurisdiction and prohibited by Section 1367. Absent subject matter jurisdiction, the complaint as pled must be dismissed. The Court observes, however, that the allegations appear to support diversity jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims against Low Cost Interlock, Inc. Accordingly, Plaintiff may either (1) proceed in federal court against Low Cost Interlock, Inc. or (2) assert the claims contained in the complaint against all defendants in state court. Accordingly, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint naming only Low Cost Interlock, Inc. as a defendant, on or before April 12, 2021. If he elects not to do so, this action shall be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on April 13, 2021 without further notice from the Court. Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 4/1/2021. (D'Amato, Joseph)
|
|
Filing 8
AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Curtis Bloxam.(Wallace, Anthony)
|
|
Filing 7
ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and LR 4 as to *Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Low Cost Interlock, Inc.* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. Attorney *Anthony A. Wallace* *394 Yale Ave* *New Haven, CT 06515*. (Fanelle, N.)
|
|
Filing 6
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Plaintiff filed the complaint in this matter in which he brings claims arising out of an allegedly defective ignition interlock device. It appears that this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction in this matter and therefore orders the Plaintiff, on or before March 31, 2021, to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed. Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over only matters in which a federal question is raised or there is diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1332. Federal question jurisdiction exists where the action "aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. 1331. "[A] suit 'arises under' federal law 'only when the plaintiff's statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon [federal law].'" Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009) (quoting Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908)). Diversity jurisdiction exists only where there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. 1332(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a)(1), a plaintiff must include in his complaint a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1); Friedlander v. Cimino, 520 F.2d 318, 320 (2d Cir. 1975) ("Rule 8(a)(1) requires that a plaintiff plead his basis for federal jurisdiction."). Here, Plaintiff asserts diversity of citizenship, Section 1332, as the basis for this Court's jurisdiction. However, Plaintiff's complaint does not meet the requirements for diversity jurisdiction because there is a lack of complete diversity between the parties. Plaintiff is a resident of Connecticut and one of the defendants is the State of Connecticut. And although not invoked, the Court notes that there is no basis to find federal question jurisdiction under Section 1331. The complaint alleges state law claims of negligent infliction of emotional distress and a product liability claim under the Connecticut Product Liability Act. Further, the allegations against the State of Connecticut are largely inscrutable and the basis upon which the Plaintiff seeks to hold the State of Connecticut liable is indiscernible. The complaint is likely subject to dismissal for this reason as well pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii). Accordingly, to the extent the Plaintiff asserts that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction in this case, Plaintiff must also address his failure to set forth the claims against the State of Connecticut in a manner required by Rule 8 or he must otherwise explain the factual and legal basis for his claims against the State of Connecticut. Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 3/23/2021. (D'Amato, Joseph)
|
|
Filing 5
NOTICE TO COUNSEL/SELF-REPRESENTED PARTIES : Counsel or self-represented parties initiating or removing this action are responsible for serving all parties with attached documents and copies of #4 Standing Protective Order, #1 Complaint filed by Curtis Bloxam, #3 Electronic Filing Order, #2 Order on Pretrial Deadlines Signed by Clerk on 03/23/2021.(Fazekas, J.)
|
|
Request for Clerk to issue summons as to All Defendants. (Wallace, Anthony)
|
|
Filing 4
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 03/22/2021.(Fazekas, J.)
|
|
Filing 3
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 03/22/2021.(Fazekas, J.)
|
|
Filing 2
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 5/21/2021. Discovery due by 9/21/2021. Dispositive Motions due by 10/26/2021. Signed by Clerk on 03/22/2021.(Fazekas, J.)
|
|
Filing 1
COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $402 receipt number ACTDC-6440864.), filed by CURTIS BLOXAM.(Wallace, Anthony)
|
|
Judge Kari A. Dooley added. (Oliver, T.)
|
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
