Hilton v. United Consumer UCFS
Robert Hilton; Joyce Oliver v. United Consumer UCFS; Jocelyn Torres; William Shaffer
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-01155
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Robert Hilton v. United Consumer UCFS, Judge Wood dismissed the amended complaint because the federal court lacked jurisdiction.
Robert Hilton and Joyce Oliver must pursue these alleged state-law money claims in state court if they seek relief; the federal action was dismissed, and they were denied permission to amend again. The defendants were not required to litigate the claims in federal court.
What happened
Robert Hilton and Joyce Oliver sued United Consumer Financial Services, Jocelyn Torres, and William Shaffer over alleged time-share payments and withdrawals. They represented themselves without lawyers.
They alleged that they were told to pay the defendants directly to pay off the time share, but money continued to be withdrawn. They did not identify a federal legal claim, the defendants’ citizenship or addresses, or the amount of relief they sought.
The court dismissed the amended complaint because it lacked authority to hear the claims: they appeared to be state-law claims, and the alleged damages were below the required $75,000. Judge Kimba M. Wood denied permission to amend again, directed entry of judgment, and stated that the claims could be brought in state court.
The detailed version
- Hilton v. United Consumer UCFS · No. 1:25-cv-01155
- Laura Swain
- Sept. 17, 2025
Background
Robert Hilton and Joyce Oliver, representing themselves, sued United Consumer Financial Services (UCFS), Jocelyn Torres, and William Shaffer. The plaintiffs alleged that they entered into a time-share arrangement and were told by Torres and Shaffer to pay them directly so that the time share would be paid off, their credit would be good, and payments would stop. They alleged that this did not happen.
The amended complaint alleged that UCFS electronically withdrew $243.78 per month from an account identified as belonging to Joyce Hilton for two years. It also alleged a final payment of $1,268.53 on January 7, 2025, even though the debt had allegedly been paid off in December 2024. The court described the claims as common-law conversion claims based on alleged wrongful withdrawals.
Jurisdiction
The court explained that federal district courts generally have jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law or disputes between citizens of different states that place more than $75,000 in controversy. The amended complaint did not identify a basis for federal jurisdiction, identify the relief sought, or provide addresses for the defendants.
The court held that the allegations, even when read generously because the plaintiffs were unrepresented, did not assert claims under federal law. The court therefore could not exercise federal-question jurisdiction. The court also held that the plaintiffs had not established diversity jurisdiction. Even assuming the plaintiffs and defendants were citizens of different states, the alleged damages—$5,850.72 in monthly installments, with possibly another $1,268.53—were well below $75,000.
Disposition
The court dismissed the amended complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). It denied leave to amend because the court concluded that the defects could not be cured. The court stated that the plaintiffs could pursue their alleged loss of money in an appropriate state court and directed the Clerk to enter judgment dismissing the action.
The action had been filed without prepaying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The court certified under § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied that fee-waiver status for an appeal. The order was signed by United States District Judge Kimba M. Wood.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.