Garrett v. Western Union

Background

Joseph Nathan Garrett, appearing without a lawyer, sued Western Union and sought unspecified damages. He alleged that on May 26, 2019, he attempted to send an amount written in the complaint as “over $6,45.00” through Western Union from a PayOMatic location in New York, New York, but that the intended recipient never received the money. Garrett described resulting financial and paperwork-related harms.

Garrett invoked federal-question and diversity jurisdiction. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

Federal-Question Jurisdiction

The court explained that federal-question jurisdiction requires a claim arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. Garrett identified “civil rights” and “federal rights” on his form complaint, but alleged no facts showing a claim under federal law. The court therefore concluded that he could not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Diversity Jurisdiction

For diversity jurisdiction, the parties must be citizens of different states, and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. The complaint appeared to allege that Garrett was a citizen of Pennsylvania and New York State, while also alleging that Western Union was a citizen of Pennsylvania and New York State, among other places. The court stated that these allegations did not establish the required complete diversity. In addition, the complaint alleged no facts suggesting that more than $75,000 was at stake.

Ruling

Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). The dismissal was without prejudice. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.