Austin v. Econo Auto Painting of West Tennessee, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

WESTERN DIVISION

ARON J. AUSTIN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) No. 2:23-cv-02209-TLP-tmp

v. )

)

ECONO AUTO PAINTING OF WEST )

TENNESSEE, INC., d/b/a ECONO AUTO )

PAINTING AND BODY WORK, )

)

Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Aron J. Austin sued Defendant Econo Auto Painting of West Tennessee after Defendant

allegedly painted Plaintiff’s car the wrong color. (ECF No. 1.) Under Administrative Order

2013-05, the Court referred this case to Chief Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham (“Judge Pham”) for

management of all pretrial matters. Plaintiff moved to amend the Complaint and add a party

(ECF No. 15) and Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.1 (ECF No.

21.) Judge Pham entered a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court

deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend and grant Defendant’ Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 34.) For

the reasons below, the Court ADOPTS the R&R, DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend and

GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

1 Defendant also moves under FRCP 12(b)(4) for insufficient process. (ECF No. 34 at PageID

307.) Because Judge Pham recommends that this matter be dismissed for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction, he does not address service of process. (Id.)

BACKGROUND AND THE R&R

Plaintiff sued Defendant for breach of contract, negligence, and intentional and negligent

infliction of emotional distress after Defendant allegedly painted Plaintiff’s car the wrong color

and then, when correcting the mistake, applied a paint coat that peeled after two weeks. (Id. at

PageID 306.) Plaintiff moved to amend the Complaint (ECF No. 10) and Judge Pham granted

this motion. In the amended complaint, Plaintiff only changed Defendant’s name from “Econo

Tampa Bay” to “Econo West Tennessee.” (Id.) Plaintiff moved to amend his complaint again to

add “Econo Tampa Bay” as a defendant and include two new claims for vicarious liability and

supervisory negligence. (ECF No. 16.) Defendant then moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(4) because the Court does not have subject matter

jurisdiction and because Defendant was improperly served. (ECF No. 21.)

After recounting the factual and procedural history, Judge Pham analyzed the potential

paths for subject matter jurisdiction: federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction.

(ECF No. 34 at PageID 308–11.) He also briefly discussed Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

15(a) which permits amendments to pleadings, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 that

permits the joinder of parties. (Id. at PageID 311–12.) Judge Pham found that the Court lacks

subject matter jurisdiction because the parties are not completely diverse and because Plaintiff

brings only state law claims. (Id. at PageID 312–13.)

Judge Pham recommended that this Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend

and grant Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

(Id.) This Court agrees with Judge Pham’s reasoning and his recommendations.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, meaning they can only adjudicate claims

authorized by the Constitution and acts of Congress. Chase Bank USA, N.A. v. City of

Cleveland, 698 F. 3d 548, 553 (6th Cir. 2012). If a court determines that it has no authority to

hear a case, then it cannot evaluate the merits and it must dismiss. Taylor v. Owens, 990 F.3d

493, 496 (6th Cir. 2021) (citations omitted). Courts liberally construe pro se complaints and hold

them “to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Williams, 631 F.3d

at 383 (quoting Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 712 (6th Cir. 2004)). But pro se litigants still

must follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th

Cir. 1989); see also Brown v. Matauszak, 415 F. App’x 608, 612, 613 (6th Cir. 2011). Courts

“have no obligation to act as counsel or paralegal to pro se litigants.” Thomas v. Romanowski,

362 F. App’x 452, 456 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004)).

A magistrate judge may submit to a district court judge proposed findings of fact and a

recommended ruling on certain pretrial matters, including whether to dismiss an action. 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)–(B). And “[w]ithin 14 days after being served with a copy of the

recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed

findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), “[w]ithin 14 days of being served with a

copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to

the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). If the parties do not

object, then a district court reviews an R&R for clear error. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory

committee notes. And the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Judge

Pham entered his R&R in September 2023 and Plaintiff did not object. The Court therefore

reviews the R&R for clear error.

DISPOSITION

Having reviewed the record here and finding no clear error, the Court agrees with Judge

Pham’s R&R.

I. Plaintiff Failed to Meet his Burden of Establishing Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Plaintiff has not shown that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear his case.

Plaintiff has not pleaded a question of federal law, nor has he pleaded claims against a diverse

party.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal district courts have “subject-matter jurisdiction over all

claims ‘arising under’ federal law.” Cobb v. Cont. Transp., Inc., 452 F.3d 543, 548 (6th Cir.

2006). That is known as “federal question” jurisdiction. Determining whether a complaint arises

under federal law is known as the “well-pleaded complaint rule.” Kitzmann v. Local 6-19M

Graphic Comms. Conf. of Intern. Brothers of Teamsters, 415 F. App’x 714, 716 (6th Cir. 2011)

(quoting Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 428 U.S. 386, 392 (1987)). This means that the federal

question must be apparent from the “face” of the complaint. Id. Plaintiff pleads claims based in

tort and contract law—state causes of action. No claim arises under federal law. And neither of

the two new claims Plaintiff wishes to add—vicarious liability and supervisory negligence—is a

federal claim. (ECF No. 34 at PageID 311.)2

2 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant erroneously took federal Paycheck Protection Program Loans.

(ECF No. 31.) This allegation does not establish federal question jurisdiction, especially given

that Plaintiff holds no private right of action. See Saro v. Brown, 11 F.App’x 387, 388 (6th Cir.

2011).

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), a court has diversity jurisdiction over a case if there is

complete diversity among the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Complete

diversity means that “no plaintiff and no defendant are citizens of the same state.” Jerome-

Duncan Inc., v. Auto-By-Tel, LLC, 176 F.3d 904, 907 (6th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). A

corporation is a citizen of every state in which it is incorporated, and where it maintains its

“principal place of business.” § 28 U.S.C. 1332(c). Because Plaintiff is a Tennessee citizen and

Defendant is incorporated in Tennessee, the parties are not diverse. (ECF No. 34 at PageID

309.) Plaintiff argues that by adding a diverse party, Econo Tampa Bay, the Court will have

subject matter jurisdiction. But he still seeks to assert his claims against Econo West Tennessee,

a non-diverse defendant. (ECF No. 34 at PageID 309.) So the Court will still not have diversity

jurisdiction. (Id.)

As a result, the Court agrees with Judge Pham’s recommendation that the Court lacks

jurisdiction to hear this case.

II. Plaintiff Cannot Amend the Complaint Because the Court Lacks Subject Matter

Jurisdiction

The Court also agrees with Judge Pham’s recommendation to deny Plaintiff’s Motion to

Amend. Though FRCP 15(a)(2) liberally permits amendment to a complaint “when justice so

requires,” a court should not grant the motion if the amendment would be futile. Parchman v.

SLM Corp., 896 F.3d 728, 736 (6th Cir. 2018) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182

(1962) (emphasis added). As mentioned above, Plaintiff has not pleaded a federal question or

sued a diverse party. The Court therefore has no subject matter jurisdiction and, even if Plaintiff

amended his claim, the Court would still lack jurisdiction.

Also, for the same reasons, the Court cannot join a party under FRCP 19. Roberts v.

Mars Petcare U.S., Inc., 874 F.3d 953, 958 (6th Cir. 2017) (“[i]n the absence of jurisdiction over

the existing lawsuit, a district court has no power to join another party to the proceeding”) (citing

Vill. of Oakwood v. State Bank & Tr. Co., 481 F.3d 364, 367 (6th Cir. 2007)).

CONCLUSION

The Court evaluates Judge Pham’s R&R for clear error and finds none. And so the Court

ADOPTS the R&R, DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend, GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to

Dismiss, and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s case WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

SO ORDERED, this 28thday of December, 2023.

s/Thomas L. Parker

THOMAS L. PARKER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE