Barry v. Discover Financial Services
| Mike Barry |
| Discover Financial Services |
| 1:2019cv08037 |
| December 6, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Manish S Shah |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 12, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 ENTERED JUDGMENT. Notices mailed. (psm, ) |
| Filing 6 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: The complaint is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Discover Financial Services acted negligently and breached a contract when it refused to rush deliver a replacement card to plaintiff in Mexico, causing approximately $2,400 in damages. There is no allegation that defendant violated federal law; negligence and breach of contract are state-law claims. Federal courts do not have jurisdiction over such claims unless the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy is more than $75,000. Assuming plaintiff is a citizen of either Mexico or Texas (his complaint states that he was in Mexico and a separate document lists an address in Texas) and Discover Financial Services is a citizen of Illinois (with its headquarters in Riverwoods, Illinois), the amount in controversy is too small to qualify for federal-court jurisdiction. This case is closed for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff is free to pursue his claims in an appropriate state court. Enter judgment and terminate civil case. Notices mailed. (psm, ) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE TO THE PARTIES - The Court is participating in the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot (MIDP). The key features and deadlines are set forth in this Notice which includes a link to the (MIDP) Standing Order and a Checklist for use by the parties. In cases subject to the pilot, all parties must respond to the mandatory initial discovery requests set forth in the Standing Order before initiating any further discovery in this case. Please note: The discovery obligations in the Standing Order supersede the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1). Any party seeking affirmative relief must serve a copy of the following documents (Notice of Mandatory Initial Discovery and the Standing Order) on each new party when the Complaint, Counterclaim, Crossclaim, or Third-Party Complaint is served. (nsf, ) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE by Mike Barry of Intent to bring legal action. (nsf, ) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet. (nsf, ) |
| Filing 1 RECEIVED Complaint and 0 copies by Mike Barry (nsf, ) |
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 Illinois Northern 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
| Search for this case: Barry v. Discover Financial Services | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Discover Financial Services | |
| 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 ] |
| Plaintiff: Mike Barry | |
| 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.
