Tucker v. Sachs et al
| Travante Tyvaugn Tucker |
| Goldman Sachs, David M Solomon and Denise Coleman |
| 1:2023cv07898 |
| September 8, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Lindsay C Jenkins |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 20, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 15 ENTERED JUDGMENT on 10/20/2023. Mailed notice(ef, ) |
| Filing 14 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: On October 3, 2023 [11, 12], the Court dismissed Plaintiff's amended complaint without prejudice and gave him until October 16, 2023 to file an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies the Court identified. The Court informed him that it would disregard any filing besides an amended complaint. Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint by October 16, 2023. Instead, he filed a nonresponsive "statement" disagreeing with the Court's analysis #13 . Even if the Court construed this filing as a motion for reconsideration of its October 3 order, it would deny the motion because the Court made clear that Plaintiff must file an amended complaint if he wishes to proceed with this lawsuit. The case is dismissed without prejudice. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice (ef, ) |
| Filing 13 STATEMENT by Travante Tyvaugn Tucker. (ph, ) |
Filing 12
ORDER written the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins on 10/3/2023. Mailed notice. (jlj, )
|
| Filing 11 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: For the reasons stated in the Order that is attached, Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. It is clear to a "legal certainty" that Tucker's claim is "really for less than the jurisdictional amount." See Smith v. Am. Gen. Life & Acc. Ins. Co., Inc., 337 F.3d 888, 892 (7th Cir. 2003). In addition to the jurisdictional issue, Tucker is admonished that the Complaint does not include any facts about the alleged conduct of Defendants Solomon or Coleman, or why the Court has jurisdiction over any claims against them. Tucker may file an amended complaint by October 16, 2023. The Court notifies Tucker that that filing must include all relevant information about this case, including the facts, and the basis for jurisdiction, including how the amount-in-controversy has been satisfied. This may mean repeating information that Tucker has described in prior filings, because the Court will not refer to prior filings when evaluating the amended complaint. The Court will also summarily strike and disregard any filing that is not an amended complaint. If Tucker does not file an amended complaint in time or that complaint fails to invoke the Court's jurisdiction or state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Court will terminate this case. Mailed notice. (jlj, ) |
| Filing 10 JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT by Travante Tyvaugn Tucker. (Received for Docketing 09/29/2023) (rc, ) |
| Filing 9 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: Plaintiff's jurisdictional statement #8 suggests that the Court has diversity jurisdiction over this action for breach of contract because he is a "resident of Illinois" and Defendants "address is located in New York." Assuming without deciding that this statement covers the parties' citizenship under 28 U.S.C. 1332(a), the Court still must be satisfied that the action satisfies the $75,000 amount in controversy. In this regard, Plaintiff's jurisdictional statement states only that "Plaintiff's claim exceeds this amount [that is, $75,000] which gives grounds for Federal jurisdiction." #8 The Court is not satisfied that this is sufficient to show that the case involves $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs. As previously explained, the complaint and the attached documents relate to an AppleCard account concern only a few thousand dollars. A case may be dismissed for failure to meet the amount in controversy requirement if it clear "to a legal certainty... the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount." Smith v. American General Life and Acc. Ins. Co., Inc., 337 F.3d 888, 892 (7th Cir.2003). The party seeking to invoke the court's jurisdiction bears the burden of showing that subject matter jurisdiction exists. See NLFC, Inc. v. Devcom Mid-America, Inc., 45 F.3d 231, 237 (7th Cir.1995) If Plaintiff believes this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction, he must explain why the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Failure to do so by October 6, 2023 will result in dismissal without prejudice. Mailed notice. (jlj, ) |
| Filing 8 JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT OF PLAINTIFF by Travante Tyvaugn Tucker. (ph, ) |
| Filing 7 APPLICATION by Plaintiff Travante Tyvaugn Tucker for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ph, ) |
| Filing 6 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: On review of the complaint, R. 1, the Court issues this subject matter jurisdiction inquiry. The complaint states that Plaintiff corresponded with Goldman Sachs on multiple occasions in 2023 concerning Goldman Sachs' breach of contract connected to an AppleCard account. Plaintiff describes (and attaches) correspondence he sent to Goldman Sachs notifying it of his intent to sue. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. On the Court's review, there is no apparent basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction because no federal law claim is asserted. Plaintiff has included citations and statutory definitions from 15 USC 1602, 12 USC 1431 and the Federal Reserve Act, but he has not identified any authority for a private right of action that would allow him to file suit under those provisions. There is also reason to doubt that the requirements of diversity jurisdiction have been satisfied. The complaint and the attached documents relate to an AppleCard account, administered by Goldman Sachs, that concern a few thousand dollars, but not nearly enough to satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement. The claims listed in the complaint are for breach of contract, non-performance of a contract, fraud, extortion, unjust enrichment, discrimination, and identity theft. All of these claims are state law claims, and the Court does not have jurisdiction over them under the circumstances. The Plaintiff must submit a Jurisdictional Statement explaining the basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction by September 26, 2023, or else the case will be dismissed without prejudice. Mailed notice. (jlj, ) |
| Filing 5 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis #3 is denied without prejudice to refiling. The Court notes that the application appears to be inaccurate based on the documents and papers Plaintiff filed as Exhibits to his complaint. The Exhibits attached to the complaint suggest that in 2021, 2022 and 2023, Plaintiff was making payments on an AppleCard account, and that recently, he was notified of an outstanding balance on his account. At a minimum, this would suggest that sources of income and/or debts and financial obligations were not included on Plaintiff's in forma pauperis application. Plaintiff is reminded that all filings, including applications to proceed in forma pauperis, must be truthful and accurate and that the documents are signed under penalty of perjury. The application states "I declare under penalty of perjury that all of the information listed above is true and correct. I understand that a false statement may result in dismissal of my claims or other sanctions." Mailed notice. (jlj, ) |
| CLERK'S NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(b), a United States Magistrate Judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action. If all parties consent to have the currently assigned United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings, all parties must sign their names on the attached #Consent To# form. This consent form is eligible for filing only if executed by all parties. The parties can also express their consent to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge in any joint filing, including the Joint Initial Status Report or proposed Case Management Order. (ph, ) |
| Filing 4 PRO SE Appearance by Plaintiff Travante Tyvaugn Tucker. (Received for docketing 9/12/2023) (ph, ) |
| Filing 3 APPLICATION by Plaintiff Travante Tyvaugn Tucker for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Received for docketing 9/12/2023) (ph, ) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet. (Received for docketing 9/12/2023) (ph, ) |
| Filing 1 RECEIVED Complaint and no copies by Travante Tyvaugn Tucker. (Exhibits) (Received for docketing 9/12/2023) (ph, ) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani. Case assignment: Random assignment. (ph, ) |
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
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.
