PITMAN v. First Presbyterian Church of San Mateo
- Susan Illston
- 3:24-cv-02852
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Pitman v. First Presbyterian Church, Judge Illston ordered Pitman to explain why the case should not be dismissed because diversity jurisdiction may be lacking.
The order affects Marvin Rodney Pitman and the defendants because Pitman must explain whether the federal court has jurisdiction before the case can proceed.
What happened
In PITMAN v. First Presbyterian Church of San Mateo, Marvin Rodney Pitman filed an amended complaint seeking damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress and aiding and abetting. He based federal jurisdiction on diversity, alleging that he is a resident of Oregon and that defendants reside in California.
The complaints do not state how much money Pitman seeks. Federal diversity jurisdiction generally requires more than $75,000 in dispute, and the court must consider whether it has jurisdiction even if the parties do not raise the issue.
Judge Susan Illston ordered Pitman to explain in writing by October 29, 2024, why the case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The order did not dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- PITMAN v. First Presbyterian Church of San Mateo · No. 3:24-cv-02852
- Susan Illston
- Oct. 22, 2024
Background
Marvin Rodney Pitman filed this federal lawsuit against First Presbyterian Church of San Mateo and other defendants. He relied on diversity jurisdiction, which allows a federal court to hear certain civil cases involving citizens of different states when more than $75,000 is at stake. The opinion states that Pitman is a resident of Oregon and that the defendants reside in California.
At a case management conference, the court set October 18, 2024, as the deadline for amending the complaint. Pitman filed an amended complaint by that deadline. The amended complaint alleges that Shannon Pappas reported to the San Mateo Police Department that Pitman had made a life-threatening call, and that the report was false because Pappas exaggerated and embellished Pitman’s call.
Pitman asserts claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and aiding and abetting. The complaint seeks monetary damages and other relief, but neither the original nor amended complaint states the amount of damages sought.
Jurisdiction Concern
The court noted that federal courts must consider on their own whether they have subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the case. Although the complaint alleges facts concerning the parties’ states, it does not state an amount in controversy, and the opinion indicates that it is not facially evident from the complaint that more than $75,000 is involved.
Order
Judge Susan Illston ordered Pitman to show cause in writing no later than October 29, 2024, why the case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The opinion is an order to show cause, not a dismissal. The provided text does not state what happened after the deadline.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.