Harris v. Stranton Motors, Inc et al
Plaintiff: Robert Harris
Defendant: Stranton Motors, Inc and General Motors
Case Number: 3:2022cv00592
Filed: April 26, 2022
Court: US District Court for the District of Connecticut
Presiding Judge: Michael P Shea
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1364 Auto Negligence
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on May 11, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
May 11, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 8 ORDER. The Court construes the plaintiff's #7 response -- which indicates that he wishes to "withdraw" his complaint -- as a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Therefore, this case is DISMISSED, and the Clerk is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 5/11/2022. (Wong, Qing Wai)
May 9, 2022 Filing 7 Letter RESPONSE TO 6 Order by Robert Harris filed by Robert Harris. (Attachments: #1 Letter, #2 Envelope, #3 Envelope) (Peterson, M)
May 4, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 6 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. The plaintiff's complaint does not appear to allege an adequate basis for the Court's subject matter jurisdiction. "A federal district court may exercise subject matter jurisdiction over a cause of action only if there exists either: (1) 'federal question' jurisdiction, which requires a claim arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, 28 U.S.C. 1331; or (2) 'diversity' jurisdiction, which requires diversity of citizenship between the plaintiff and all defendants and the amount in controversy exceeds 'the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs,' 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)." Barton v. Ne. Transp., Inc., No. 21-CV-326 (KMK), 2022 WL 203593, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 24, 2022). Here, the complaint does not allege a federal claim, which is necessary for federal question jurisdiction. The plaintiff alleges that he purchased a 2003 Suburban but was instead given "a 2002 defective LS Trailblazer," ECF No. #1 at 2, and seeks relief as a result of that alleged deception, id. at 4. The allegations in the complaint can be construed, at most, as a breach of contract claim or a fraud claim. Those claims are all premised on state law and the plaintiff does not cite any federal statutes or causes of action upon which he seeks relief. Neither does the complaint set forth a basis for diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiff states that he is a citizen of Connecticut. ECF No. #1 at 1. Further, he states that Defendant Scranton Motors, Inc. is located in Vernon, CT and that Defendant General Motors is located in Detroit, MI. Id. at 1-2. If those locations are the companies' principal place of business or state of incorporation, then Defendant Scranton Motors, Inc. is a citizen of Connecticut and Defendant General Motors is a citizen of Michigan. 28 U.S.C. 1332(c)(1) ("[A] corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of every State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its principal place of business."). Because the plaintiff and one of the defendants, Scranton Motors, Inc., are citizens of the same state (Connecticut), the Court does not have diversity jurisdiction over this case because the parties are not completely diverse. See Battaglia v. Shore Parkway Owner LLC, 249 F. Supp. 3d 668, 670 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) ("Federal courts only have diversity jurisdiction when there is complete diversity between the partiesthat is, when all plaintiffs are citizens of different states from all defendants."). Further, the plaintiff already has filed a substantially similar case that was dismissed by Judge Covello. See Harris v. Scranton, Inc. LLC et al, 3:16-cv-1949-AVC at Dkt Nos. 19, 20. Although the previous case names more defendants -- i.e, L. Thomas Scranton, LLC, Meghan S. Wilson, Matthew L. Scranton, Mary Barra -- than this case, the claims in the previous case are also based on the alleged conduct regarding the 2003 Suburban purchase. See Harris, 3:16-cv-1949-AVC at Dkt Nos. 1, 10. In that case, Magistrate Judge Richardson issued a recommended ruling, which Judge Covello approved, Harris, 3:16-cv-1949-AVC at Dkt No. 19, stating that the plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed as untimely because the alleged claims were time-barred. Harris, 3:16-cv-1949-AVC at Dkt No. 14 at 5-9. Specifically, the recommended ruling states that the events described in the complaint occurred in September of 2002, id. at 5, and that, therefore, the claims were time-barred or untimely because the statute of limitations for a fraud claim is 3 years and the statute of limitations for a breach of contract claim is 6 years, id. at 7-8. Within 14 days of this order, plaintiff shall file a statement that (1) sets forth a basis for the Court's jurisdiction either under federal question jurisdiction or under diversity jurisdiction, and (2) shows cause why the Court should not dismiss the complaint as time-barred or untimely (as explained in the plaintiff's previous case before Judge Covello). If no notice is filed -- or if the notice filed fails to demonstrate an adequate basis for the Court's jurisdiction or show that the claims are not time-barred --, then the Court will dismiss this case with prejudice. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 5/4/2022. (Wong, Qing Wai)
April 29, 2022 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 #2 Order on Pretrial Deadlines, #4 Electronic Filing Order, #1 Complaint filed by Robert Harris, #3 Protective Order Signed by Clerk on 04/29/2022. (Peterson, M)
April 26, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 4 ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 04/26/2022. (Peterson, M)
April 26, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 3 STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 04/26/2022. (Peterson, M)
April 26, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 2 Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 6/25/2022. Discovery due by 10/26/2022. Dispositive Motions due by 11/30/2022. Signed by Clerk on 04/26/2022. (Peterson, M)
April 26, 2022 Filing 1 COMPLAINT against General Motors, Stranton Motors, Inc, filed by Robert Harris. (Attachments: #1 Exhibits) (Peterson, M)
April 26, 2022 Filing fee received from Robert Harris: $ 402.00, receipt number CTXH00018957 (Peterson, M)

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 this case: Harris v. Stranton Motors, Inc et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Robert Harris
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Stranton Motors, Inc
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: General Motors
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?