McGee v. Auto Plus Towing
- 3:23-cv-03285
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In McGee v. Auto Plus Towing, the court dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction after McGee failed to respond.
The dismissal affected Anthony McGee’s federal action against Auto Plus Towing; the court dismissed it without prejudice, without deciding the underlying fraud or towing-law allegations.
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 questioned whether it had authority to hear the case. It found no diversity jurisdiction because the complaint indicated that both McGee and Auto Plus Towing were California citizens, and the stated $54 rebate and $390 in towing and storage fees did not exceed the $75,000 requirement. McGee also did not clearly identify a federal claim.
After McGee failed to respond to the court’s order to explain the basis for jurisdiction, the court dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court noted that McGee may refile in an appropriate California Superior Court.
The detailed version
- McGee v. Auto Plus Towing · No. 3:23-cv-03285
- Aug. 8, 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 alleged violations of California’s “towing law of 2021.” The complaint stated that he did not receive a $54 rebate and was charged $390 in storage and towing fees.
Jurisdictional issue The court issued an order requiring McGee to explain why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, meaning the court’s legal authority to hear the dispute. The court explained that federal jurisdiction could exist through a federal question or diversity of citizenship.
The complaint did not identify the specific federal statute supporting McGee’s fraud claim. The court also found that the allegations indicated both parties were California citizens, which defeated diversity jurisdiction. In addition, the $54 rebate and $390 in fees, standing alone, did not satisfy the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction.
Ruling The court stated that McGee had not complied with the order to show cause by the deadline. It therefore dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The order terminated the action and noted that McGee may refile in an appropriate California Superior Court.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.