Julian Barlog v. Desirre Ranallo, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia grants Julian Barlog’s application to proceed in forma pauperis but dismisses his complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court concludes that the allegations do not adequately establish complete diversity of citizenship or the required amount in controversy under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The court further finds that amendment would be futile because Burford abstention would be appropriate in this dispute concerning parental rights and access to children.

Holdings

1. The complaint did not adequately establish complete diversity because it alleged only that the defendants were Virginia residents and did not plausibly establish that Ranallo was domiciled in Virginia rather than Alaska.
2. The complaint failed to plausibly allege that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
3. Because the complaint failed to establish complete diversity and the amount-in-controversy requirement, and no independent jurisdictional basis existed, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and was required to dismiss the action.
4. Leave to amend was denied as futile because, even if the jurisdictional allegations were corrected, Burford abstention would be appropriate.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint plausibly established complete diversity of citizenship for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
2. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
3. Whether the court was required to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
4. Whether leave to amend should be denied as futile because Burford abstention would apply to the dispute concerning parental rights and access to the parties' children.

Disposition

dismissed