Fuller v. Roar Money
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-05284
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
In Fuller v. Roar Money, Judge Swain dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction but allowed Fuller to amend by providing facts supporting diversity jurisdiction.
Stanley Fuller’s case was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, but he was given an opportunity to amend the complaint to provide facts supporting diversity jurisdiction; Roar Money remained the defendant.
What happened
In Fuller v. Roar Money, Stanley Fuller, representing himself, claimed that Roar Money failed to send him a promised refund check. He sought the money and interest charges, but did not state how much was at issue.
The court said diversity jurisdiction requires parties from different states and more than $75,000 in dispute. Although the complaint suggested the parties were in different states, it did not allege that the claim exceeded $75,000. The court therefore dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain allowed Fuller to file an amended complaint with additional facts supporting jurisdiction. The court directed the Clerk not to enter judgment immediately and said that an appeal would not qualify for fee-free status. The opinion contains conflicting deadlines: one section says 60 days to amend, while the conclusion says 30 days.
The detailed version
- Fuller v. Roar Money · No. 1:22-cv-05284
- Laura Swain
- July 29, 2022
Background
Stanley Fuller, proceeding without a lawyer and under a fee-waiver order, sued Roar Money based on diversity jurisdiction. Fuller alleged that Roar Money, formerly known as Money Lion, failed to send him a refund check that it had promised. An attached July 9, 2021 email stated that an electronic check for the balance of Fuller’s Money Lion checking account would be sent within three to seven weeks. Fuller did not allege the amount in dispute and requested his money and interest charges.
Jurisdictional standard
The court explained that federal district courts generally have jurisdiction over federal-law claims and diversity cases. Diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 requires complete diversity of citizenship and a reasonable probability that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The court also noted that it must dismiss an action whenever it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.
Ruling
The complaint provided a South Carolina address for Fuller and a New York address for Roar Money, suggesting different-state citizenship. But Fuller did not allege that his claim exceeded the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold. The court therefore dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). The court stated that the complaint did not suggest a federal-law claim that could support federal-question jurisdiction.
Because Fuller was representing himself, the court granted him leave to amend. It directed him to provide additional facts that could establish diversity jurisdiction. The order instructed the Clerk of Court not to enter judgment immediately and to hold the matter open so Fuller could file an amended complaint. The opinion's discussion grants 60 days to amend, but its conclusion instructs Fuller to file within 30 days of the order. If he did not amend within the allowed period, the court said it would enter judgment dismissing the action.
The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. No summons would issue at that time.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.