Harris v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A.
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:21-cv-09570
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In Harris v. Toyota Motor Sales, Judge Spero granted Harris’s fee-waiver request but ordered him to explain why his complaint should not be dismissed.
Kevin Jerome Harris Jr., Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., and Vancouver Toyota. Harris’s application to proceed without paying court fees was granted, but the complaint remained subject to possible dismissal unless Harris amended it or responded by January 10, 2022.
What happened
In Harris v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Kevin Jerome Harris Jr., representing himself, asked to proceed without paying court fees. He said his Toyota’s brakes failed, causing damage, anxiety, and harm to his delivery-driver career, and he also accused Vancouver Toyota of improperly charging him for a loaner vehicle and accusing him of theft.
The court found that Harris had not adequately shown that the federal court had authority to hear the case, that California was the proper place for the case, or that the defendants had sufficient connections to California. The court also said Harris had not stated a valid claim under the False Claims Act because he did not allege that anyone submitted a fraudulent claim for payment to the federal government.
The court granted Harris’s application to proceed without paying court fees and ordered him to show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed. Harris had until January 10, 2022, to file an amended complaint or explain why the existing complaint was sufficient. The order was signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero.
The detailed version
- Harris v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A. · No. 4:21-cv-09570
- Haywood Gilliam
- Dec. 13, 2021
Background
Kevin Jerome Harris Jr., proceeding without a lawyer, applied to proceed without paying court fees. The court granted that application. It then screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires a court to review a fee-waived complaint and dismiss claims that are frivolous, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, or seek money from an immune defendant.
Harris alleged that he was driving on Interstate 84 at 80 miles per hour when his brakes failed. He swerved onto the shoulder and damaged his car’s bumper. He alleged that the incident endangered his life, caused continuing anxiety, and harmed his career as a delivery driver. He took the car to a certified Toyota dealership, apparently Vancouver Toyota, where he was charged a diagnosis fee and quoted $4,500 to repair the brake compressor and tune up the car.
Harris asserted a personal-injury product-liability claim against Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. He also asserted a False Claims Act claim against Vancouver Toyota based on allegations that the dealership charged him for a loaner vehicle while his car was being repaired and accused him of stealing that vehicle.
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
Harris invoked diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The court explained that diversity jurisdiction generally requires complete diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy greater than $75,000. Harris listed addresses for himself and the defendants but did not allege the parties’ citizenship. The court also found that he did not provide enough facts to determine whether the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
The court noted that the False Claims Act claim might support federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and possibly supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims. But Harris did not invoke those jurisdictional provisions, and the court stated that the False Claims Act claim appeared subject to dismissal for the reasons discussed below. The court ordered Harris to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Personal Jurisdiction and Venue
Personal jurisdiction is a court’s authority over a defendant. The court stated that Harris had not alleged facts showing that either defendant had sufficient contacts with California for general or specific personal jurisdiction. He alleged that the brake failure occurred on Interstate 84, which does not pass through California, and that the events occurred in “Clark County,” which does not exist in California. The court therefore ordered Harris to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.
The court also found no alleged connection between the case and the Northern District of California based on either the defendants’ residence or the events at issue. It ordered Harris to show cause why the case should not be dismissed, or possibly transferred to another district, for improper venue.
False Claims Act Claim
The court explained that the False Claims Act concerns false claims submitted to the federal government to obtain federal money through fraud; it does not generally cover false statements. Because Harris did not allege that either defendant submitted a false claim for payment to the United States, the court ordered him to show cause why this claim should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim.
Disposition
The court did not dismiss the complaint in this order. Instead, it ordered Harris to file by January 10, 2022, either an amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies or a response arguing that the existing complaint was sufficient. The court stated that failure to respond, or failure to cure the deficiencies, would lead to reassignment to a district judge with a recommendation for dismissal. Any amended complaint had to include all facts, claims, and defendants Harris wished to pursue rather than incorporating the original complaint by reference. Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero signed the order.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.