Barnes v. Morgan & Morgan

Background

Saharon Barnes, representing himself, sued Morgan & Morgan, a personal injury law firm. Barnes alleged that unidentified hospital staff arranged an Uber ride for him on May 26, 2023, and that the driver backed into another vehicle while Barnes was in the back seat. Barnes said he later sent accident-related documents to attorneys at Morgan & Morgan and repeatedly requested that the documents be returned, but did not receive them. He labeled his claim “vandalism property damage,” described his injury as “mental anguish,” and requested an unspecified “basic case / dollar amount.”

The court had previously allowed Barnes to proceed without paying court fees in advance. In reviewing that filing, the court was required to dismiss it if the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the dispute, or if other statutory grounds for dismissal applied.

Jurisdiction analysis

The court considered the two stated bases for federal jurisdiction. First, federal-question jurisdiction requires a claim arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. Although Barnes wrote “basis of rights” in his complaint, he did not identify any federal law supporting his claims. The court therefore found no federal-question jurisdiction.

Second, diversity jurisdiction generally requires the plaintiff and defendant to be citizens of different states and requires more than $75,000 to be in dispute. Barnes alleged that he was a New York citizen and that Morgan & Morgan was a citizen of “Georgia/Florida/New York.” The court stated that it was unclear whether Morgan & Morgan was a corporation or an unincorporated entity, which would affect how its citizenship is determined. In any event, Barnes alleged that both he and Morgan & Morgan were citizens of New York and did not allege facts showing that the amount in dispute exceeded $75,000. The court therefore found no diversity jurisdiction.

Disposition

The court dismissed Barnes’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). It granted Barnes 30 days’ leave to replead because he might be able to allege additional facts establishing jurisdiction. If he did not file an amended complaint within that period, the Clerk of Court would be directed to enter judgment. The order also stated that Barnes could refile in an appropriate state court.

Judge Kimba M. Wood certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Barnes permission to appeal without paying fees. The court directed the Clerk to keep the action open until a civil judgment was entered.