Harris v. PBC NBADL, LLC
4:10-cv-00782
N.D. Okla.Feb 22, 2011Background
- Harris sued PBC NBADL, LLC (Tulsa 66ers) in the Northern District of Oklahoma asserting false advertising and a claimed mistheorization related to not being selected for the Tulsa 66ers open tryout.
- Defendant moved to dismiss and corrected its corporate name; service was on four individuals, not on the corporate entity.
- Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, and the court liberally construes his pleadings.
- Plaintiff’s filings do not establish any federal basis for relief or any basis for diversity jurisdiction; citizenship and state of incorporation/place of business were not alleged.
- The court independently must determine subject-matter jurisdiction; lack of jurisdiction requires dismissal.
- The court dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and found the defendant’s motion moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has subject-matter jurisdiction | Harris asserts jurisdiction under his status as plaintiff. | No federal question or complete diversity shown; service incomplete on corporate entity. | Lack of jurisdiction; dismissal granted. |
| Whether service on individuals suffices to assert claims against the entity | Plaintiff's filings appear to name individuals associated with Tulsa 66ers as defendants. | Service was on individuals, not the corporate entity; corporate entity proper defendant not properly served. | Insufficient service on the proper defendant; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Whether pro se pleading rules require applying standard procedures | Pro se status should liberalize pleading requirements. | Pro se status does not overcome lack of jurisdictional allegations. | Even liberal construction cannot create jurisdiction absent federal basis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (U.S. Supreme Court 1972) (liberal construction of pro se pleadings)
- Gaines v. Stenseng, 292 F.3d 1222 (10th Cir. 2002) (liberal construction does not establish jurisdiction)
- McBride v. Doe, 71 F. App’x 788 (10th Cir. 2003) (dismissal for lack of jurisdiction when insufficient jurisdictional facts)
- Brown v. Fisher, 251 F. App’x 527 (10th Cir. 2007) (independent duty to determine jurisdiction; dismissal if lacking)
- Penteco Corp. v. Union Gas Sys., Inc., 929 F.2d 1519 (10th Cir. 1991) (lack of jurisdiction requires dismissal when facts insufficient)