Mercer v. Poland Springs

Background

Robert Mercer, appearing without a lawyer, filed a complaint against Poland Springs. He invoked federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and alleged that Poland Spring water violated his rights under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Mercer stated that on February 29, 2020, he drank a gallon of Poland Spring water that did not taste right and caused uncontrollable bowel movements. He sought $25 million in damages.

The court had previously allowed Mercer to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. The court explained that it was required to dismiss a case filed under that status if it was frivolous, failed to state a claim, sought relief from an immune defendant, or lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Subject-matter jurisdiction means the court’s legal authority to hear the dispute.

Federal-question jurisdiction

The court held that merely citing federal jurisdiction was not enough. For a private Safe Drinking Water Act action, the statute requires the plaintiff to give at least 60 days’ notice of the alleged violation to the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, the alleged violator, and the state. Mercer did not allege that he had given this notice. The court therefore concluded that he could not bring a claim under the Act.

Diversity jurisdiction

The court also considered jurisdiction based on the parties’ citizenship. That type of jurisdiction requires the parties to be citizens of different states and requires the claim to involve more than $75,000. The court found that Mercer had not alleged facts establishing diversity jurisdiction, including facts showing that the jurisdictional amount was satisfied.

Disposition

The court dismissed Mercer’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). It also denied leave to amend because the defects could not be cured by changing the complaint. The Clerk was directed to mail Mercer a copy of the order and record service on the docket.