Dahmen v. New Creation Daycare Corporation
- Patrick Schiltz
- 0:23-cv-01948
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Dahmen v. New Creation Daycare Corporation, Judge Schiltz dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and denied IFP as moot.
Erin Dahmen’s complaint against New Creation Daycare Corporation was dismissed without prejudice because the court found no federal-question or diversity jurisdiction. Her application to proceed without paying the filing fee was denied as moot.
What happened
In Dahmen v. New Creation Daycare Corporation, Erin Dahmen said she was wrongfully fired from her job at New Creation Daycare Corporation. She alleged that the daycare claimed to have video of her shoving a child but did not let her view it, and she asked to clear her name, see the video, and have the daycare change its policy or provide guidance.
The court said Dahmen’s complaint did not identify a federal-law claim or any facts creating a substantial federal issue. It also did not properly establish diversity jurisdiction because it did not state either party’s citizenship or show that more than $75,000 was at stake. Minnesota mailing addresses alone were not enough to establish citizenship.
Judge Schiltz ruled that the court lacked jurisdiction. He dismissed the complaint without prejudice and denied Dahmen’s application to proceed without paying filing fees as moot.
The detailed version
- Dahmen v. New Creation Daycare Corporation · No. 0:23-cv-01948
- Patrick Schiltz
- June 30, 2023
Background
Erin Dahmen filed a civil complaint against New Creation Daycare Corporation and an application to proceed without paying the filing fee. She alleged that she was wrongfully terminated from her employment at New Creation. According to the complaint, New Creation claimed to have video of Dahmen shoving a child, but Dahmen was not allowed to view the video. She also alleged that she was told she was not meeting performance expectations, although no one had previously told her that. Dahmen asked the court to clear her name, show her the video, and require New Creation to change its “shoving policy” or allow her to view the video and provide guidance about the conduct shown in it.
Jurisdiction Analysis
The court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear the dispute.
The court first rejected federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The complaint did not refer to federal law or the Constitution. The court characterized the wrongful-termination claim as a state-law claim and found no facts suggesting that it raised a substantial federal issue. The court also noted that, although federal law prohibits certain forms of employment discrimination, Dahmen did not plead facts supporting such a claim.
The court then rejected diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Diversity jurisdiction generally requires complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. Dahmen did not allege her citizenship or New Creation’s citizenship. The court said that listing Minnesota mailing addresses for both parties was insufficient to establish citizenship. It further noted that diversity jurisdiction would not exist if both parties were Minnesota citizens.
Disposition
The court dismissed Dahmen’s complaint without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) because the court lacked jurisdiction. “Without prejudice” means the dismissal did not bar refiling. The court denied Dahmen’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee as moot. Judge Patrick J. Schiltz ordered that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.