Styles v. BMW Financial
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-10047
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Styles v. BMW Financial, Judge Swain dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction but allowed Shivana Styles 30 days to replead state-law claims.
Shivana Styles must file an amended complaint within 30 days to continue pursuing any state-law claims; BMW Financial and BMW GAP Insurance remain named defendants, but the complaint was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
What happened
In Styles v. BMW Financial, Shivana Styles sued BMW Financial and BMW GAP Insurance after her BMW was stolen and GAP Insurance allegedly did not pay the entire loan balance. She alleged harassment, credit damage, lost income, and other losses, and sought money damages.
The court found that Styles had not alleged facts supporting a federal claim, including a trademark claim. It also found that she had not provided enough information about the defendants’ citizenship or shown that her claims were probably worth more than $75,000, so the court lacked federal-question and diversity jurisdiction.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction but granted Styles 30 days to file an amended complaint asserting state-law claims and facts supporting diversity jurisdiction. The court said judgment would be entered if she did not amend, and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Styles v. BMW Financial · No. 1:23-cv-10047
- Laura Swain
- Jan. 2, 2024
Background
Shivana Styles, representing herself, sued BMW Financial and BMW GAP Insurance. She alleged that her BMW X5M50 was stolen and that BMW GAP Insurance did not pay the entire BMW Financial loan, leaving a balance of $5,412.81. She also alleged repeated communications about the balance, harassment by a BMW employee, effects on her credit, and other financial and personal harms. She sought the maximum money damages, including amounts for car rentals, a replacement vehicle, credit damage, collections, lost income, and medical treatment.
Styles invoked federal-question jurisdiction and referenced “blocked trademark earnings and contracts for business,” but the court found that she alleged no facts supporting a federal trademark-infringement claim or another viable federal claim. The court therefore concluded that it lacked federal-question jurisdiction.
The court also considered diversity jurisdiction, which can allow a federal court to hear state-law claims when the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in dispute exceeds $75,000. Styles alleged that she resided in New York, but she did not provide each defendant’s state of incorporation or principal place of business. She also did not state the amount of damages sought, and the court could not determine that her claims were probably worth more than $75,000. The court therefore concluded that it lacked diversity jurisdiction as well.
Ruling
The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). It granted Styles 30 days to file an amended complaint asserting any state-law claims and alleging facts showing diversity jurisdiction and a viable claim under state law. The court stated that if Styles did not file an amended complaint within that period, it would direct the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Styles fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The matter was to remain open on the docket until a civil judgment was entered.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.