FAGNIDE v. CARABEAN CRUISE
| JEAN DE DIEU A.S. FAGNIDE |
| CARABEAN CRUISE |
| 1:2022cv01691 |
| August 26, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Debra McVicker Lynch |
| James R Sweeney |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Account Receivable |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 11, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 6
CLOSED JUDGMENT/Order of Dismissal - Plaintiff Jean de Dieu Fagnide's pro se Complaint, ECF No. #1 , suffered from various jurisdictional deficiencies. The Court, by its September 2, 2022. Order to Show Cause, (ECF No. 4), gave Fagnide until September 30, 2022, to show why his action should not be dismissed. Fagnide was warned that failure to show cause or timely file an amended complaint may result in dismissal of his action. He has not responded to that Order, and the time to do so is past. Fagnide's claims are therefore dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; Fagnide's Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, ECF No. #4 , is denied as moot; and this case is closed. (Copy to Plaintiff via U.S. mail). Signed by Judge James R. Sweeney II on 10/11/2022.(JDC)
|
|
Filing 4
Order to Show Cause - Plaintiff Jean de Dieu Fagnide filed his pro se Complaint, (ECF No. 1), on August 26, 2022. In the Complaint, Fagnide alleges violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 45 et seq., arising from events that took place in 2010. Those allegations fail to establish subject-matter jurisdiction for this Court. He must show that a federal question exists or that diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy are satisfied. The failure to show cause may result in the dismissal of this action without further notice. ***SEE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION*** (Copy to Plaintiff via U.S. mail) Show Cause Response due by 9/30/2022. Signed by Judge James R. Sweeney II on 9/2/2022.(JDC)
|
| Filing 5 NOTICE to Pro se Litigant - The following information is provided to pro se litigants to inform them about rules and procedures governing how they communicate with the Court. (Copy to Plaintiff via U.S. mail) (JDC) |
| Filing 3 MAGISTRATE JUDGE's NOTICE of Availability to Exercise Jurisdiction issued. (DRB) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, filed by Plaintiff JEAN DE DIEU A.S. FAGNIDE. (DRB) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against CARABEAN CRUISE, filed by JEAN DE DIEU A.S. FAGNIDE. (No fee paid with this filing) (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(DRB) |
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 Indiana Southern 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: FAGNIDE v. CARABEAN CRUISE | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: JEAN DE DIEU A.S. FAGNIDE | |
| 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: CARABEAN CRUISE | |
| 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.
