Fuller v. Roar Money
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-05284
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Fuller v. Roar Money, Judge Swain dismissed Fuller’s amended complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and denied appeal fee waiver.
Stanley Fuller’s case was dismissed because the court found no subject-matter jurisdiction. Roar Money Formerly Money Lion was no longer required to defend the amended complaint in this action, and Fuller was denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
What happened
Fuller v. Roar Money involved Stanley Fuller, who represented himself and said Roar Money had not refunded about $2,200 from his account. He first relied on diversity jurisdiction and later invoked federal-question jurisdiction.
The court found that the amended complaint repeated the same facts and still did not establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction. Although Fuller had previously been given time to amend, the court said another amendment would be futile.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the amended complaint, declined to allow another amendment, and directed the clerk to enter judgment. The court also granted Fuller’s request for reconsideration only to the extent that it accepted his amended complaint for filing, terminated the outstanding motion, and denied a fee waiver for any appeal.
The detailed version
- Fuller v. Roar Money · No. 1:22-cv-05284
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 24, 2022
Background
Stanley Fuller appeared without a lawyer and was proceeding without paying filing fees. He alleged that Roar Money Formerly Money Lion had failed to refund approximately $2,200 that he had in an account. Fuller initially brought the case under diversity jurisdiction, a basis for federal jurisdiction involving qualifying parties from different states. The opinion states that Fuller resides in South Carolina and that the defendant is located in New York.
The court had previously dismissed Fuller’s original complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and gave him 30 days to file an amended complaint. Fuller then filed an amended complaint invoking federal-question jurisdiction, which is jurisdiction based on a claim arising under federal law. The amended complaint alleged the same facts as the original complaint.
Court’s reasoning
The court dismissed the amended complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction for the same reasons stated in its earlier order. It concluded that Fuller’s jurisdictional problems could not be cured by amendment and therefore declined to give him another opportunity to amend.
Rulings
The court dismissed the amended complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It granted Fuller’s motion for reconsideration to the extent that it accepted the amended complaint for filing, directed the clerk to terminate the outstanding motion, and directed the clerk to issue judgment. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Fuller permission to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.