Hilton v. Penguin Book Writers

Background

Robert Hilton, who was representing himself, sued Lina Garcia and Maryland Author House, described in the opinion as a self-publishing company. The court had allowed Hilton to proceed without paying the filing fee and later received his amended complaint.

Hilton alleged that Garcia, whom he described as a senior publishing consultant, charged $150 to his credit card, did not respond to his messages or calls, and advertised a Facebook promotion whose price increased from $300 to $600. Hilton also alleged that when he contacted Maryland Author House, the company said it did not know who Garcia was. The amended complaint asserted claims described as “fraudulent activities,” “false doctrine,” “federal stolen funds,” and violations related to credit-card account security. Hilton sought unspecified relief.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

Federal district courts generally have subject-matter jurisdiction—the power to hear a case—when the case presents a federal question or when the parties are citizens of different states and more than $75,000 is in dispute.

The court concluded that Hilton had not asserted a claim arising under federal law. It characterized his allegations as common-law fraud and conversion claims, explaining that the fact that the allegedly taken money came from Social Security benefits did not turn those claims into federal claims. The court also stated that, even if Hilton intended to assert a federal securities claim, his allegations did not involve anything that qualified as a security under the federal Securities Act.

The court separately found that Hilton had not established diversity jurisdiction. He listed a New York address for himself but did not provide facts about Garcia’s or Maryland Author House’s citizenship or addresses. In addition, the amended complaint did not specify the amount in controversy, and the alleged $150 loss was below the required $75,000 threshold.

Rulings

The court dismissed Hilton’s amended complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). It denied further leave to amend because Hilton had already amended once and the jurisdictional defects could not be cured by another amendment. The opinion noted that this ruling did not prevent Hilton from pursuing state-law claims in state court or reporting a possible scam to authorities.

Judge Kimba M. Wood denied Hilton’s request for the court to seek pro bono counsel as moot. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Hilton permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. It directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment dismissing the action.