Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Schober v. Schober

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

June 11, 2018

WILLIAM STEPHEN SCHOBER, Plaintiff,
v.
LEO BERNARD SCHOBER, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          Cynthia Reed Eddy, United States Magistrate Judge.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Presently before the court is a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 15) filed on behalf of Defendant Leo Schober. For the reasons stated herein, the motion will be granted and the Complaint will be dismissed with prejudice.

         II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

         Plaintiff William Stephen Schober, appearing pro se, instituted this action on November 20, 2017 by filing a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1), which the court granted (ECF No. 2), whereupon he filed a Complaint on November 22, 2017 (ECF No. 3). He then filed an Amended Complaint on November 27, 2017 (ECF No. 5), the operative pleading.

         In the Amended Complaint[1] plaintiff alleges:

Leo Bernard Schober received my furniture and other movable property stolen from my house at 3460 Bismark St. Pgh PA 15213, by Ralph George Lyle. This caused the city to tear down the house as an abandoned house while I was working overseas. Leo Bernard Schober received the stolen furniture and possessions from Ralph George Lyle.

(ECF No. 5 at 5). Plaintiff claims he is entitled to relief as follows:

Leo Bernard Schober knowingly received my stolen furniture: $25, 000 and other movable property (clothes, books, curtains, etc.): $51, 000; causing City of Pittsburgh to deem my house abandoned and be torn down: $50, 000. Everything of sentimental value of mine was stolen. Homelessness and loss of all my possessions caused me pain and suffering $20, 000.

(ECF No. 5 at 6).

         Plaintiff alleges we have diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because the parties are diverse and the claims involve more than $75, 000, exclusive of interest and costs.

         Although defendant agrees that there is complete diversity between the parties, he disputes whether the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000. Defendant has moved to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1).

         III. DISCUSSION

         A motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) challenges the existence of a federal court's subject matter jurisdiction. “When subject matter jurisdiction is challenged under Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff must bear the burden of persuasion.” Kehr Packages, Inc. v. Fidelcor, Inc., 926 F.2d 1406, 1409 (3d Cir.1991). The court must resolve motions over subject matter jurisdiction before proceeding to a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.