JOFFE v. PROVIDE COMMERCE, INC., -- JFM-15-1397. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Maryland
Number: infdco20150910c19
Visitors: 12
Filed: Sep. 08, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 08, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM J. FREDERICK MOTZ , District Judge . Plaintiff has instituted this pro se action against defendant. Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff has responded to the motion to dismiss by filing a motion for leave to conduct discovery. It is apparent from the face of the complaint that plaintiff s claim fails for two reasons. First, this court lack subject matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy is less than $75,000. Second, plaintiff has no standing to bring
Summary: MEMORANDUM J. FREDERICK MOTZ , District Judge . Plaintiff has instituted this pro se action against defendant. Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff has responded to the motion to dismiss by filing a motion for leave to conduct discovery. It is apparent from the face of the complaint that plaintiff s claim fails for two reasons. First, this court lack subject matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy is less than $75,000. Second, plaintiff has no standing to bring ..
More
MEMORANDUM
J. FREDERICK MOTZ, District Judge.
Plaintiff has instituted this pro se action against defendant. Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff has responded to the motion to dismiss by filing a motion for leave to conduct discovery.
It is apparent from the face of the complaint that plaintiff s claim fails for two reasons. First, this court lack subject matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy is less than $75,000. Second, plaintiff has no standing to bring the action since it was his spouse, not he, who entered into the contractural relationship with defendant. No facts learned during discovery would cure these deficiencies. Accordingly, defendant's motion to dismiss is granted and plaintiff's motion for leave to conduct discovery is denied.
Source: Leagle
