HILL
v.
CASH AMERICA EAST INC
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a motion to amend a complaint should be denied as futile if the proposed amendment would still fail to establish subject-matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff sought to amend his complaint to assert federal question jurisdiction based on the Privacy Act. The magistrate judge recommended dismissal f…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Report And Recommendation (R&R) cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (R&R) (Doc. 17). Plaintiff did not object to the R&R, but he did file a motion for leave to amend first amended complaint along with a proposed amended complaint (Doc. 20). Upon due consideration of the R&R and the case file, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge’s determination that this case should be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. That conclusion is not undermined by the motion for leave to amend or the proposed amended complaint. Generally, leave to amend should be freely given. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). However, leave to amend can be denied as “futile” when the proposed amended complaint “would still fail at the motion-to-dismiss or summary-judgment stage.” L.S. ex rel. Hernandez v. Peterson, 982 F. 3d 1323, 1332 (11th Cir. 2020).
The proposed amended complaint relies on the Privacy Act of 1974 and one of its implementing regulations, 48 C.F.R. §24.104, as the basis for federal question jurisdiction. However, those laws apply to federal governmental agencies, not private entities. See Williams v. ALFA Ins. Agency, 349 F. App'x 375, 376 (11th Cir. 2009). Neither defendant in this case is a federal governmental agency, so they are not subject to the Privacy Act or its regulations. Thus, the proposed amended complaint still fails to establish that this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction and granting leave to amend would be futile. Where, as here, a case is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, the dismissal is “without prejudice.” Yeh Ho v. Sabocik, 775 F. App'x 551, 555 (11th
Cir. 2019). This will allow Plaintiff to pursue his claims against Defendants in an appropriate state court. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. The magistrate judge’s R&R is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order. 2. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend complaint (Doc. 20) is DENIED. 3. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 4. The Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this Order and close the case file. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of March, 2023.