Asmelashe v. Dawit Auto Body Shop

Background

Almaz Asmelashe and Beraki Eskinder represented themselves. They sued Dawit Auto Body Shop, which the complaint described as the lienholder of Asmelashe’s car. According to the complaint, Asmelashe and Dawit agreed in April 2018 that she would pay $600 initially and then $600 each month toward a $6,500 debt, with permission to drive the car while making the payments. After she made the first payment, Dawit allegedly said he had sold the car and used the payment for storage. The complaint alleged that he did not store the car and instead left it on the street, where it received parking tickets.

The complaint further alleged that, in 2020, Asmelashe arranged through Ernesto Treviller to negotiate another buy-back. Dawit allegedly agreed to sell the car for $4,500 but later said he had sold it to someone else. The plaintiffs appeared to assert a state-law claim for conversion.

Court’s analysis

The court reviewed Asmelashe’s application to proceed without paying the civil filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. It explained that each person seeking this status must submit an application and a financial affidavit. Because Eskinder had not submitted his own application, the court found that the submission was incomplete. The court denied the application without prejudice, allowing both plaintiffs either to submit the required affidavits or to pay the $405 filing fee.

The court also identified a jurisdictional problem. Federal-question jurisdiction requires a claim arising under the United States Constitution, federal law, or a treaty. The court concluded that the complaint appeared to allege only conversion of the car, which is a state-law claim. The court also said that diversity jurisdiction apparently was unavailable because the civil cover sheet showed all parties were citizens of California; diversity jurisdiction generally requires opposing parties to be citizens of different states and more than $75,000 in controversy.

Disposition

The court denied the application to proceed without paying the filing fee without prejudice and identified deficiencies in the complaint. It gave the plaintiffs until June 1, 2021, to file an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies and separate fee-waiver applications. Alternatively, they could file a one-page dismissal of the federal case, which the order said would operate as a dismissal without prejudice and allow them to pursue state-law claims in state court. If they filed neither, the court said it would reassign the case to a district judge and recommend dismissal. The order did not decide the merits of the alleged car-sale dispute.