Brown v. Apple Corporation

Background

Dora Brown, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Apple Corporation under the court’s diversity jurisdiction. She alleged that a computer virus had infected her Apple iPhone and iPad despite Apple’s reputation for making products with adequate security, and that Apple had been unable to fix the devices. She sought an unspecified amount of compensation.

The court had previously allowed Brown to proceed without paying the filing fee. Because she was proceeding without paying that fee, the court was required to review the complaint and dismiss it if it was frivolous, failed to state a claim, sought relief from an immune defendant, or showed that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction

Diversity jurisdiction generally requires that the plaintiff and defendant be citizens of different states and that the amount in controversy exceed $75,000. Brown alleged that she was a New York citizen and that Apple was a California citizen because it was incorporated there and had its principal place of business there.

The court concluded, however, that Brown had not alleged facts showing that her claims satisfied the $75,000 jurisdictional amount. She did not assign a value to the alleged damage caused by Apple’s conduct or inaction, and the complaint did not show that she could legally recover more than $75,000. The court therefore determined that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). It granted Brown 30 days from the date of the order to file an amended complaint establishing diversity jurisdiction. The court stated that if she did not comply within that time and could not show good cause, it would enter a judgment dismissing the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Judge Colleen McMahon also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Brown permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. The court did not decide the merits of Brown’s allegations about the devices or Apple’s conduct.