Roundtree v. Ultimate Vacation Experience, 2:17-cv-02390

Pro se Florida residents Warrick and Edith Roundtree sued Ultimate Vacation Experience in D. Nev. seeking $5,000 (recovery of ~$618 paid plus emotional damages) for allegedly refusing refunds for promotional trips.
Complaint attached demand/cancellation correspondence showing charges in March–April 2015 and certified-mail cancellation attempts; plaintiffs claim certified letters were refused or returned.
Plaintiffs filed the complaint in Sept. 2017 but did not file proof of service within Rule 4(m) deadlines; clerk issued Notice of Intent to Dismiss for lack of service.
Plaintiffs sought (informally) to add multiple alias entities as defendants but never filed a proper amended complaint alleging jurisdiction or service; filings showed confusion about court procedures.
Court issued an Order to Show Cause on jurisdiction, service, and failure to file a certificate of interested parties; plaintiffs conceded their misunderstanding and acknowledged federal court likely lacked jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Subject-matter jurisdiction (federal question or diversity)	Roundtree contends facts justify federal suit; later admits lack of knowledge and concedes federal court lacks jurisdiction	Not argued on record; court assesses adequacy	Court: No federal question alleged; amount in controversy far below $75,000—no diversity jurisdiction; dismissal required
Personal jurisdiction/service of process	Plaintiffs say they mailed summons to defendant and "served all defendants" by certified mail on Dec 29, 2017	Certified mail is not proper service for a corporation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 or Nevada rules	Court: Service by certified mail insufficient; no proper service; court lacks personal jurisdiction; dismissal warranted
Amendability of complaint	Plaintiffs sought leave to amend to add aliases/individuals (via informal mail) and asked to correct errors	No properly filed amended complaint showing jurisdiction or service; listing names insufficient	Court: Jurisdictional defect cannot be cured by amendment in this forum; recommends dismissal without prejudice
Filing defects (certificate of interested parties, proof of service)	Plaintiffs claim misunderstanding of filing requirements; failed to file certificate of service and certificate of interested parties	Procedural rules require those filings; failure undermines case administration	Court: Failures reinforce dismissal; plaintiffs may refile in proper forum but this case should be closed

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., 545 U.S. 546 (establishes limits of federal jurisdiction)
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (party challenging federal jurisdiction bears burden)
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (court must dismiss when lacking jurisdiction)
Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574 (distinguishes subject-matter and personal jurisdiction)
St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283 (amount-in-controversy legal-certainty test)
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (due-process notice requirements for service)
Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694 (service-of-process principles)
Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103 (leave to amend not required when defects incurable)