United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
BRUCE A. GILBERT, Plaintiff,
DIPLOMAT PROPERTY MGR LLC, et al., Defendants.
F. KENNEY, JUDGE
se Plaintiff Bruce A. Gilbert has filed an Amended
Complaint against Diplomat Property MGR LLC, Bank of America,
Fay Servicing, and McCabe, Weisberg & Conway LLC. ECF
Nos. 18, 20. Gilbert also filed a Motion to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis. ECF No. 19. Because the Court previously
granted Gilbert's application to proceed in forma
pauperis (ECF No. 6), his current motion (ECF No. 19)
seeking the same relief is denied as moot. For the following
reasons, the Amended Complaint (ECF Nos. 18, 20) will be
dismissed with prejudice.
used the Court's preprinted form complaint and filled in
the sections requesting the basis for this Court's
jurisdiction, the operative facts, and relief requested. ECF
No. 18 at 2. Under Section II - Basis for Jurisdiction,
Gilbert alleges Federal Question and Diversity of
Citizenship. Id. According to Gilbert, the federal
Constitutional, statutory or treaty right at issue is
"sates of Texas, North Carolina, and New York are now
involved and the amount is 360, 000.00 plus damages which
equal 100, 000.00." Id. Gilbert is a
Pennsylvania citizen for diversity purposes and all
Defendants' citizenship is diverse to his except for
McCabe, Weisberg & Conway LLC. Id. at 2, 3. The
topics addressed in Gilbert's narrative include a loan
modification, predatory lending, and fraud. Id. at
3. Gilbert alleges he sustained injuries that "have been
medical, emotional, mental loss of jobs, threat of being
evicted for 10 years for [sic] my home of 20."
Id. at 4. The relief Gilbert seeks is "360, 000
(loan amount) plus 100, 000 (damages) due to the fraud that
led us to this point." Id.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) requires the Court to dismiss
a complaint if it fails to state a claim. Whether a complaint
fails to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is
governed by the same standard applicable to motions to
dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6),
see Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d
Cir. 1999), which requires the Court to determine whether the
complaint contains "sufficient factual matter, accepted
as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (quotations omitted). As Gilbert is proceeding pro
se, the Court construes his allegations liberally.
Higgs v. Att'y Gen., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir.
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires a complaint to contain
"a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief." A district court may
sua sponte dismiss a complaint that does not comply
with Rule 8 if "the complaint is so confused, ambiguous,
vague, or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance,
if any, is well disguised." Simmons v. Abruzzo,
49 F.3d 83, 86 (2d Cir. 1995) (quotations omitted). This
Court has noted that Rule 8 "requires that pleadings
provide enough information to put a defendant on sufficient
notice to prepare their defense and also ensure that the
Court is sufficiently informed to determine the issue."
Fabian v. St. Mary's Med. Ctr., No. Civ. A.
16-4741, 2017 WL 3494219, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 11, 2017)
Gilbert's Amended Complaint is subject to dismissal if it
fails to set forth a proper basis for this Court's
exercise of subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B); Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) ("If the court
determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.");
Group Against Smog and Pollution, Inc. v. Shenango,
Inc., 810F.3d 116, 122 n. 6 (3d Cir. 2016) (explaining
that "an objection to subject matter jurisdiction may be
raised at any time [and] a court may raise jurisdictional
issues sua sponte"). As a plaintiff commencing
an action in federal court, Gilbert bears the burden of
establishing federal jurisdiction. See Lincoln Ben. Life
Co. v. AEI Life, LLC, 800 F.3d 99, 105 (3d Cir. 2015)
("The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction rests
with the party asserting its existence." (citing
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 n.3
Amended Complaint fails to provide enough information to put
any of the named defendants on enough notice to prepare their
defenses. Further, the Court is not sufficiently informed to
determine the issues. Here, the factual allegations are
identical to the initial Complaint. Accordingly, the Amended
Complaint remains indecipherable.
describes a situation where a 2009 loan modification was
completed under Gilbert's deceased father's name that
Gilbert attempted to correct but the loan was subsequently
sold. ECF No. 18 at 3. It appears that Gilbert included any
entity that purchased the loan as a defendant. Gilbert claims
Defendant Diplomat Property MGR LLC is the current holder of
the loan. Id. However, the Complaint does not appear
to include any facts related to named Defendant McCabe,
Weisberg & Conway LLC.
the basis for the Court's jurisdiction is uncertain.
Gilbert has not indicated how this Court has jurisdiction and
it is unclear from the facts asserted in the Complaint
whether a factual basis exists that would permit this Court
to exercise federal question jurisdiction over this case.
Further, so long as McCabe, Weisberg & Conway LLC is
listed as a defendant, complete diversity of the parties does
reviewed the Amended Complaint, the Court finds that Gilbert
failed to correct the previous defects contained therein.
Accordingly, the Court finds the Amended Complaint fails to
state a cognizable claim and it provides no basis for the
Court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly,
the Court will dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 8 and