Cristy Li v. Wide Open West, Inc. d/b/a Breezeline, et al.

Summary

The court grants Plaintiff Cristy Li’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and screens her complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The magistrate judge recommends dismissal without prejudice because the complaint alleges state-law breach-of-contract claims but does not plausibly establish federal-question or diversity jurisdiction. The recommendation concerns a settlement agreement involving pricing for cable and internet services provided by Wide Open West, Inc., doing business as Breezeline.

Holdings

1. The complaint did not establish federal-question jurisdiction because Li's claims were for breach of a settlement agreement and arose under state contract law rather than federal law or the Constitution.
2. The complaint did not plausibly establish diversity jurisdiction because Li alleged neither the citizenship of the parties nor an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.
3. The action should be dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) for failure to assert a claim within the court's subject-matter jurisdiction.
4. Li's request to proceed in forma pauperis was granted.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint plausibly established federal-question jurisdiction over Li's breach-of-contract claims.
2. Whether the complaint plausibly established diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 by alleging complete diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.
3. Whether the action should be dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
4. Whether Li should be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Disposition

other