Barge v. Ken Bett's Towing Company
- 3:21-cv-02558
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Barge v. Ken Bett’s Towing, the court questioned federal jurisdiction, ordered Melissa Barge to respond, and continued a hearing.
Melissa Barge and Ken Bett’s Towing Company; the court’s order also addressed the previously dismissed Alameda-related defendants.
What happened
In Barge v. Ken Bett’s Towing Company, Melissa Barge’s remaining claim alleged that the towing company unlawfully took and sold her car. She represented herself. The other defendants had previously been dismissed for failure to serve them on time.
The court questioned whether it still had authority to hear the case. It said the complaint appeared to assert only a state-law property-conversion claim against the towing company, and it was unclear whether the parties were citizens of different states or whether more than $75,000 was at stake.
The court ordered Barge to explain by April 17, 2023, why the case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, or alternatively to file a second amended complaint. The court also continued her motion-to-strike hearing to June 20, 2023. The opinion was issued by the court.
The detailed version
- Barge v. Ken Bett's Towing Company · No. 3:21-cv-02558
- Mar. 27, 2023
Background
Melissa Barge, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a first amended complaint against the Alameda Police Department, the City of Alameda, Officer Marc Hurwitz, and Ken Bett’s Towing Company. The court later dismissed Marc Horwitz, the Alameda Police Department, and the City of Alameda under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for failure to complete service on time. Ken Bett’s Towing Company was the only remaining defendant and was served on December 28, 2022.
The amended complaint alleged one claim against the towing company: conversion under California law. Barge alleged that the company’s owners, acting together with the Alameda Police Department, exercised unlawful control over her car and sold it at auction.
Jurisdictional Concern
The court issued an order to show cause, meaning it required Barge to explain why the case should not be dismissed. The court identified two possible bases for federal subject-matter jurisdiction: federal-question jurisdiction, which generally requires a claim arising under federal law, and diversity jurisdiction, which generally requires citizens of different states and more than $75,000 in dispute.
The court said Barge’s federal claims had been alleged only against defendants who were dismissed, leaving uncertainty about whether any federal claim remained against the towing company. The court also noted that the towing company stated it was domiciled in California, Barge listed an Alameda, California address, and the complaint did not clearly state the amount in controversy specifically against the towing company.
Order
The court ordered Barge to explain in writing by April 17, 2023, why the action should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Alternatively, she could file a second amended complaint that clearly stated the basis for jurisdiction, the federal claim she sought to bring against the towing company, and the specific conduct and resulting injury alleged. The court stated that she could not add new claims or parties without the court’s permission or the towing company’s agreement.
The court continued the April 4, 2023 hearing on Barge’s motion to strike the towing company’s affirmative defenses to June 20, 2023, at 2:00 p.m. The opinion did not dismiss the case or decide the merits of the conversion claim.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.