On this day, the Court considered Plaintiffs' Complaint and Motion for a Temporary
Restraining Order. The Court has two concerns regarding this case. First, the Court questions its
jurisdiction to hear this case. Second, assuming the existence of jurisdiction, the Court is unable
to rule on Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order because the Motion and the
Complaint are too vague. The Court describes its concerns below in more detail and provides
Plaintiffs with the opportunity to refine their assertion of the Court's jurisdiction as well as the
basis for their claims and for the granting of the Temporary Restraining Order.
A.
Jurisdiction
At the outset, the Court questions whether it in fact has jurisdiction over this claim.
Federal courts have an obligation to thoroughly examine their own jurisdiction. United States v.
Hays, 515 U.S. 737, 742 (1995). A federal court has the affirmative duty to inquire into
jurisdiction whenever the possibility of a lack of jurisdiction arises. Marshall v. Gibson's Prods.,
Inc., 584 F.2d 668, 672 (5th Cir. 1978). Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
provides that whenever it appears that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the court must
Case 3:07-cv-00226-KC Document 13 Filed 07/25/2007 Page 1 of 6
dismiss the action. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3).
In their JS-44 form, Plaintiffs state that they invoke this Court's jurisdiction through
diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332. In their Complaint, Plaintiffs assert that the Court's
jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, federal question jurisdiction, and 28 U.S.C. 1367,
supplemental jurisdiction. The Court will assume that Plaintiffs are asserting jurisdiction under
both diversity and federal question jurisdiction and addresses each of these assertions of
jurisdiction in turn.
Federal courts can dismiss a claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based upon: (1)
the complaint alone; (2) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts in the record; or (3) the
complaint supplemented by undisputed facts and the court's resolution of disputed facts. Clark v.
Tarrant County, 798 F.2d 736, 741 (5th Cir.1986). For a plaintiff to invoke diversity jurisdiction
of the federal court, the plaintiff must allege facts that indicate the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000, excluding interests and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The party invoking federal court
jurisdiction bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the court has
subject matter jurisdiction. De Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 11 F.3d 55, 58 (5th Cir.1993).
In this case, Plaintiffs allege that they have suffered $840,000 in damages due to
statements posted by Defendant on the Internet; however, Plaintiffs have provided no facts or
evidence to support this amount in controversy. Since Plaintiffs are acting pro se, the Court will
permit Plaintiffs to provide evidence as to the amount in controversy, which must exceed $75,000
in order to invoke this Court's diversity jurisdiction.
In addition, in their Complaint, Plaintiffs have invoked this Court's jurisdiction pursuant
28 U.S.C. 1331, federal question jurisdiction as well as 28 U.S.C. 1367, supplemental jurisdiction.
The only federal claim in the Complaint, and thus the only source for federal question jurisdiction,
Case 3:07-cv-00226-KC Document 13 Filed 07/25/2007 Page 2 of 6
the allegation that Defendant stalked Plaintiff Ana Callier, violating 18 U.S.C. 2261A, Interstate
Stalking.
18 U.S.C. 2261A provides:
Whoever . . .
(2) with the intent-- (A) to kill, injure, harass, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person in another State . . . or (B) to place a person in another State . . . , in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to--
(i) that person; (ii) a member of the immediate family . . . (iii) a spouse or intimate partner of that person;
uses the mail, any interactive computer service, or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that causes substantial emotional distress to that person or places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to, any of the persons described in clauses (i) through (iii) of subparagraph (B); . . . shall be punished as provided in section 2261 (b) of this title.
18 U.S.C. 2261A.
18 U.S.C. 2261A is a criminal statute. As such, Plaintiffs may not bring a claim pursuant
to this federal law. Charges of criminal wrongdoing, such as interstate stalking, may only be
brought by the federal prosecutor. Accordingly, Plaintiffs only federal claim, that of Stalking
under § 2261A, must be dismissed.
A court has supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that are so related to the
claims over which the court has original jurisdiction that they form part of "the same case or
controversy." 28 U.S.C. 1367(a). Because Plaintiffs have not alleged a valid federal claim, this
Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims. Accordingly, this
Court has neither federal question nor supplemental jurisdiction to hear this case.
Thus, the only possible grounds for jurisdiction is diversity jurisdiction, provided that
Plaintiffs can provide evidence to support their claim that more than $ 75,000 is in controversy in
Case 3:07-cv-00226-KC Document 13 Filed 07/25/2007 Page 3 of 6
this case.
B.
Vagueness of the Claims
Assuming that the Plaintiffs establish this Court's jurisdiction, the Court next turns to the
vagueness of the claims. Upon review of Plaintiffs' Motion and the Complaint, the Court finds
that it is unable to rule on the Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order because both the
Complaint and the Motion are vague and unsupported by evidence. Accordingly, the Court will
provide Plaintiffs with an opportunity to provide clarification as well and evidence in support of
their claim.
More specifically, the Court understands that Plaintiffs allege that Defendant has made
several statements which Plaintiffs claim are false, misleading, and designed to harm their
business. However, it is not clear on the face of the pleadings how such statements are libelous or
injurious to Plaintiffs. For each of the allegations below, the Court requests that Plaintiffs
provide information explaining how the following statements are libelous or harmful:
1.
In ¶ 5 of the Complaint, Plaintiffs write "On numerous occasions, Defendant Creditwrench
wrote that Plaintiff Brandon posted under the name of `E. Normis Debtor.' This
statement is false, misleading, and is designed to harm the business of CCH consulting."
2.
In ¶ 6, Plaintiffs state that "Defendant Creditwrench wrote that Plaintiff Ana was
associated with CCH consulting."
3.
In ¶ 7, Plaintiffs state that Defendant wrote that CCH Consulting and E. Normis Debtor
are "one and the same" and that "E. Normis Debtor is actually one Brandon L. Callier."
4.
In ¶ 8, Plaintiff makes allegations similar to those above and include reference to an Adam
Wheeler.
5.
In ¶ 9, Plaintiff again states that Defendant has said that Brandon Callier is, in fact, E.
Case 3:07-cv-00226-KC Document 13 Filed 07/25/2007 Page 4 of 6
Normis Debtor and that the blog for CCH Consulting is written by E. Normis Debtor or
Brandon Callier.
For each of the above allegations, Plaintiff shall provide information explaining:
a.
What about the statement is defamatory or harmful?
For example, why is Defendant's allegedly revealing Plaintiff Brandon Callier to be E.
Normis Debtor harmful or defamatory to Plaintiffs? Why would Plaintiffs' association
with Adam Wheeler be harmful or defamatory? Why is it relevant to Plaintiffs' business
who authors the CCH Consulting blog?
c.
When and where were the alleged statements made or posted?
C.
Evidence in Support of Motion
In addition, Plaintiffs have submitted no evidence in support of their Motion for a
Temporary Restraining Order. Plaintiffs' self-serving statements are of no use to the Court. To
rule on this Motion, the Court requires evidence in support of each element of the law. Such
evidence in support of the TRO must show how Plaintiffs are suffering irreparable harm to their
business due to Defendant's statements, that Defendant in fact made the statements, the content
of the statements, and how they are damaging, as well as why Plaintiff is substantially likely to
succeed on the merits of the underlying suit.
D.
Conclusion
Based upon the above issues, the Court gives Plaintiffs until August 10, 2007, to provide
evidence to support its claim that more than $75,000 is in controversy in this case, to clarify the
claims set out above, and to provide evidence in support of their Motion for a Temporary
Restraining Order.
SO ORDERED.
Case 3:07-cv-00226-KC Document 13 Filed 07/25/2007 Page 5 of 6
SIGNED on this 25
th
day of July 2007.
______________________________________
KATHLEEN CARDONE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:07-cv-00226-KC Document 13 Filed 07/25/2007 Page 6 of 6
