Hicks v. Smith
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:21-cv-01957
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 6
In Hicks v. Smith, Judge Tostrud dismissed Hicks’s complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and denied his remaining motions as moot.
Hicks’s amended complaint was dismissed without prejudice, so the claims were not decided on their merits. Daniel Isaac Smith and Endurance Broadcasting obtained dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and Hicks’s remaining motions were denied as moot.
What happened
In Hicks v. Smith, Hicks, representing himself, alleged that Daniel Isaac Smith and Endurance Broadcasting agreed to transfer an AM radio-station license to him but later refused. He brought claims involving misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, specific performance, and conversion.
The court found no federal claim because Hicks’s claims arose under state law, and the Communications Act provision he cited did not provide a private right of action. The court also found no diversity jurisdiction because Hicks did not plead the parties’ citizenship or allege more than $75,000 in dispute.
Judge Eric C. Tostrud granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part as moot, dismissed Hicks’s amended complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and denied Hicks’s remaining motions as moot.
The detailed version
- Hicks v. Smith · No. 0:21-cv-01957
- Eric Tostrud
- May 24, 2022
Background
Hicks filed an amended complaint against Daniel Isaac Smith and Endurance Broadcasting concerning an alleged agreement to transfer the license for KLBB, an AM radio station. Hicks alleged that he offered $1,000, plus certain fees and costs, to purchase the license and that Smith verbally accepted the offer on March 13, 2019. Hicks alleged that Smith later refused to transfer the license.
Hicks asserted claims for misrepresentation and fraud by omission, unjust enrichment and specific performance, and conversion. He appeared to invoke federal-question jurisdiction by referring to section 309(f) of the Communications Act of 1934. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and also raising alternative arguments about personal jurisdiction and the pleading of fraud. Hicks filed additional motions.
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
The court held that Hicks’s claims did not present a federal question. Although the complaint referred generally to federal agency authority and section 309(f) of the Communications Act, the court read the allegations as asserting state-law claims based on an alleged agreement to purchase the KLBB license. The court also concluded that the cited Communications Act provision did not provide a private right of action.
The court further held that the complaint did not establish diversity jurisdiction. Hicks did not plead the citizenship of the parties, and he did not allege that more than $75,000 was in dispute. The court noted that the concrete amounts alleged included the $1,000 purchase price and certain fees and costs, while the complaint did not identify a specific amount for its references to compensatory and punitive damages.
Disposition
The court did not reach the defendants’ alternative arguments concerning personal jurisdiction or whether Hicks pleaded fraud with enough detail. The court ordered that the defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part as moot. It dismissed Hicks’s amended complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and ordered that Hicks’s remaining motions be denied as moot.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.