Couther v. Bassett
Date Filed2023-12-18
DocketCivil Action No. 2023-3468
JudgeJudge Beryl A. Howell
Cited0 times
StatusPublished
Full Opinion (html_with_citations)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DASHEIKA COUTHER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-03468 (UNA)
)
)
GALLAGHER BASSETT, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed a complaint, ECF No. 1, and an application for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis (âIFPâ), ECF No. 2. Plaintiffâs IFP application is granted and, for
the reasons discussed below, this matter is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring the court to dismiss an action âat any timeâ it determines that
subject matter jurisdiction is wanting).
Plaintiff, a resident of Woodbridge, Virginia, sues a single defendant, Gallagher Bassett.
See Compl. at 1. According to the Complaint, Gallagher Bassett is located in Clinton, Iowa. See
id. Plaintiff, who is a caterer, was grocery shopping at a Shoppers Supermarket in Forestville,
Maryland, on September 10, 2023, when she slipped and fell in an aisle. See id. at 2. She contends
that, although the floor was quite wet and slippery, no warning was provided, and that another
customer had previously notified a store employee about the hazard, but that employee ignored the
complaint. See id. As a result of the fall, plaintiff injured her foot, and she was unable to complete
her scheduled catering job that day. See id. She alleges that she lost $2,500 associated with that
job. See id.
Plaintiff also asserts that, shortly thereafter, a representative from Gallagher Bassett
contacted her on behalf of the Supermarket, presumably as a third-party administrator or claims
manager. See id. at 2â3. She alleges that that representative mistreated her, then ignored her, and
ultimately denied her claim because she never sought any medical treatment. See id. at 3â4. She
demands the $2,500 in lost fees, plus $2,000 in additional damages to compensate her for
âemotional distress.â See id.
The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited and is set forth
generally at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331and 1332. Under those statutes, federal jurisdiction is available only when a âfederal questionâ is presented, or the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
, 1332.
First, plaintiff has filed a tort claim against a private actor and thus the Complaint raises no
federal question. Second, although the parties appear to be of diverse citizenship, plaintiff seeks
only $4,500 in damages, which falls well below the $75,000 threshold. Moreover, even if plaintiff
had somehow established subject matter jurisdiction, venue is improper in this District. Venue in
a civil action is proper only in (1) the district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside
in the same state in which the district is located, (2) in a district in which a substantial part of the
events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred (or a substantial part of the property that is
the subject of the action is situated), or (3) in a district in which any defendant may be found, if
there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b),
1406(a). Here, none of the parties are located in the District of Columbia, and plaintiffâs claims
have no connection to this District.
For these reasons, the Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. An order consistent with
this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.
/s/_______________________
BERYL A. HOWELL
Date: December 18, 2023 United States District Judge