McGee v. Auto Plus Towing
- 3:23-cv-03285
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
McGee v. Auto Plus Towing: the court questioned federal jurisdiction and ordered McGee to explain or amend his complaint; the court issued the order.
Anthony McGee and Auto Plus Towing; the order required McGee to establish federal jurisdiction or file a second amended complaint.
What happened
In McGee v. Auto Plus Towing, Anthony McGee, representing himself, sued Auto Plus Towing over alleged fraud and violations of California towing law. He referred generally to the “United States Code” but did not identify a specific federal law.
The court said it was unclear whether federal-question jurisdiction existed because the complaint did not identify a federal law supporting the claim. It also found no apparent diversity jurisdiction because the complaint indicated both parties were citizens of California, and the stated $54 rebate and $390 in towing and storage fees did not exceed $75,000.
The court did not dismiss the case in this order. Instead, it ordered McGee to explain by July 24, 2023, why the case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, or to file a second amended complaint addressing jurisdiction, his claim, and Auto Plus Towing’s alleged conduct; the court issued the order.
The detailed version
- McGee v. Auto Plus Towing · No. 3:23-cv-03285
- July 5, 2023
Background
Anthony McGee, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a complaint against Auto Plus Towing. He alleged “acts of fraud” under the “United States Code” and violations of California’s “towing law of 2021.” He alleged that he did not receive a $54 rebate and was charged $390 in towing and storage fees.
Jurisdiction concerns
The court explained that federal courts have limited authority to hear cases. Federal jurisdiction could exist if the complaint raised a claim under federal law or if the parties were citizens of different states and more than $75,000 was at stake.
The court found the federal-law basis unclear because McGee did not identify the federal statute or code supporting his fraud claim. The court also found that the complaint indicated both McGee and Auto Plus Towing were citizens of California, so diversity of citizenship was not shown. In addition, the amounts McGee identified did not exceed the $75,000 threshold for diversity jurisdiction.
Order
Because federal jurisdiction was unclear, the court ordered McGee to explain in writing, by July 24, 2023, why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Alternatively, the court allowed him to respond by filing a second amended complaint by that date. The amended complaint had to clearly state the basis for federal jurisdiction, the claim he sought to bring, the actions or omissions he attributed to Auto Plus Towing, and the resulting injury.
The order also referred McGee to the court’s handbook and Legal Help Center for self-represented litigants. The court did not dismiss the case in this order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.