Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 0 views

    Gwendolyn Spence v. Ford Motor Company, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Gwendolyn Spence appealed the district court's dismissal of her complaint against Ford Motor Company for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that Spence's complaint alleged only state law claims, did not contain any intellectual property claims, and did not specify a damages amount, so federal question or diversity jurisdiction was not established.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Gwendolyn Spence v. Ford Motor Company, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    0 views3 pages
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Gwendolyn Spence appealed the district court's dismissal of her complaint against Ford Motor Company for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that Spence's complaint alleged only state law claims, did not contain any intellectual property claims, and did not specify a damages amount, so federal question or diversity jurisdiction was not established.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2016-02-29 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-2255

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Gwendolyn Spence appealed the district court's dismissal of her complaint against Ford Motor Company for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that Spence's complaint alleged only state law claims, did not contain any intellectual property claims, and did not specify a damages amount, so federal question or diversity jurisdiction was not established.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    0 views3 pages

    Gwendolyn Spence v. Ford Motor Company, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Gwendolyn Spence appealed the district court's dismissal of her complaint against Ford Motor Company for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that Spence's complaint alleged only state law claims, did not contain any intellectual property claims, and did not specify a damages amount, so federal question or diversity jurisdiction was not established.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 15-2255

    GWENDOLYN A. SPENCE,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    FORD MOTOR COMPANY; FORD MOTOR COMPANY INSURANCE COMPANY,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District
    Judge. (2:15-cv-00069-AWA-LRL)

    Submitted:

    February 25, 2016

    Decided:

    February 29, 2016

    Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
    Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Gwendolyn A. Spence, Appellant Pro Se.


    Barry Dorans, WOLCOTT
    RIVERS & GATES, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Paul D. Hudson, MILLER,
    CANFIELD, PADDOCK & STONE, PLC, Kalamazoo, Michigan, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Gwendolyn

    A.

    Spence

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order

    dismissing her complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.


    We affirm.
    We review de novo a district courts dismissal for lack of
    subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
    12(b)(1).

    Demetres v. East West Const., Inc., 776 F.3d 271, 272

    (4th Cir. 2015).

    A plaintiff has the burden of establishing

    subject-matter jurisdiction.

    Id.

    Spences complaint alleges federal-question and intellectualproperty jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1338(a) (2012), but
    her claims are all based on state law and do not contain any
    intellectual-property claims.

    Although the parties are diverse,

    Spence did not allege a dollar amount in her complaint.

    See JTH

    Tax, Inc. v. Frashier, 624 F.3d 635, 638 (4th Cir. 2010) (Courts
    generally determine the amount in controversy by reference to the
    plaintiffs complaint.); see also Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Glob.
    Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 570-71 (2004) (It has long been the
    case that the jurisdiction of the court depends upon the state of
    things at the time of the action brought.).

    Thus, we conclude

    that the district court correctly found itself without subjectmatter jurisdiction.
    Accordingly, although we grant Spences motion for leave to
    file untimely opposition reply brief, we affirm the judgment of
    2

    the district court.


    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the

    contentions

    are

    adequately

    this

    and

    argument

    court

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like