Williams v. Sterling BMW

Background

Self-represented plaintiff Bartholomew Williams filed a complaint and an application to proceed without paying the filing fee. He alleged claims related to his 2019 purchase of a certified used vehicle from Sterling BMW. The complaint appeared to assert fraud and misrepresentation claims against Sterling BMW, BMW of North America, and Mercedes Benz.

Jurisdictional concerns

Federal district courts have limited jurisdiction. Williams stated that the case belonged in federal court under diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction generally requires that the parties be citizens of different states and that more than $75,000 be at stake, excluding interest and costs. For a person, citizenship depends on domicile—the person’s permanent home—not merely a mailing or residence address. For a corporation, citizenship includes its state of incorporation and the state where it has its principal place of business.

The court found that the complaint did not allege Williams’s state of citizenship or domicile, and it did not provide facts establishing the citizenship of the defendants. The complaint stated that Sterling BMW was located in Newport Beach, California, and listed a California address for BMW of North America, but those allegations did not establish diversity jurisdiction.

The court also concluded that the complaint did not establish federal-question jurisdiction. Williams mentioned 18 U.S.C. § 1001 and 18 U.S.C. § 371, but the court explained that both are federal criminal statutes and that neither creates a private right to sue.

Order

Because it was unclear whether the court had subject-matter jurisdiction—the authority to hear the case—the court ordered Williams to explain in writing by December 21, 2022, why the case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The court stated that failure to respond, or failure to establish a jurisdictional basis, would result in dismissal of the case. The order itself was an order to show cause and did not dismiss the case.