Danielle LaTriece Tucker v. Cash App

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio overruled Plaintiff Danielle LaTriece Tucker’s objection to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and adopted the recommendation to dismiss her complaint against Cash App. The court held that the complaint and objection failed to provide fair notice of the factual and legal grounds for her claims, establish a legal basis for jurisdiction, or state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The court directed the Clerk to enter judgment and close the case.

Holdings

1. The complaint failed to satisfy Rule 8(a)(2) because it did not identify the claims, explain how Cash App's conduct gave rise to those claims, or provide sufficient factual and legal grounds to give the defendant fair notice.
2. Dismissal was proper because, even when liberally construed, the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
3. The complaint did not adequately establish federal subject matter jurisdiction because it did not identify a federal legal basis for the action or allege the amount in controversy required for diversity jurisdiction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint satisfied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) by providing fair notice of the claims and the factual and legal grounds supporting them.
2. Whether the complaint stated a claim upon which relief could be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), including whether the statutes referenced by plaintiff supplied a legally cognizable basis for relief.
3. Whether the plaintiff adequately alleged a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Disposition

dismissed