United States District Court, D. Minnesota
ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
BRISBOIS, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter comes before the undersigned United States Magistrate
Judge upon the routine supervision of the cases that pend
before the Court, pursuant to a general assignment made in
accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636.
James Briks and Jerome Briks (hereinafter collectively
“Plaintiffs”), proceeding pro se, initiated the
present case on January 2, 2019. (Compl. [Docket No. 1]).
Plaintiffs named as Defendants Karl J. Yeager; “Meager
& Greer, attorneys at law”; Sue M. Kirtz, and
various John and Jane Does. (See, Id.).
Plaintiffs assert that all parties are residents of
Minnesota. (See, Id. at 2).
their Complaint, Plaintiffs assert that they previously
retained Defendants “to engage in legal proceedings to
prosecute a Civil Complaint in the State of Minnesota . . .
.” (Id. at 3). Plaintiffs contend, however,
that Defendants in this action improperly served the
defendants in that state court action, and therefore,
Plaintiffs suffered “a total los[e] of the entire
situation . . . .” (Id. at 3-4).
basis of those assertions, Plaintiffs purport to raise claims
of (1) negligence, (2) breach of contract, and (3) breach of
unjust enrichment. (Id. at 4-9). As relief,
Plaintiffs seek “general damages in excess of $10,
000.00”; “special damages in excess of $10,
000.00”; “actual damages in excess of $10,
000.00”; “monetary or punitive damages against
all Defendants . . . in a set amount of $75, 000,
000.00”; and “any other relief this Court sees
fit.” (Id. at 10).
January 2, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a “Motion for
Screening of Complaint Under 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(a).” [Docket No. 8]. Plaintiffs' Motion
requested that their Complaint be “screened pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).” (Id.).
January 8, 2019, the undersigned issued an Order, [Docket No.
10], denying Plaintiffs' “Motion for Screening of
Complaint Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).” In that
Order, the Court also explained that based on the record then
presently before the Court Plaintiffs' Complaint failed
to establish that subject matter jurisdiction exists in the
present case. (Order [Docket No. 10]). “Although it
appear[ed] evident to the Court that subject matter
jurisdiction d[id] not exist in the present case, the Court
[afforded] Plaintiffs an opportunity to explain why subject
matter jurisdiction exists.” (Id.). The Court
directed Plaintiffs to file a response as to the issue of
subject matter jurisdiction by no later than February 8,
2019. (Id.). The Court warned Plaintiffs that if
subject matter jurisdiction does not exist in the present
case, then the present action must be dismissed.
caused a summons and a copy of the Complaint to be served on
Defendants on January 14, 2018. (Summons Returned Executed
[Docket No. 11]).
January 25, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a document entitled
“Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of
Subject Matter Jurisdiction Exists.” [Docket No. 12].
The document, however, does not address the issue of subject
matter jurisdiction. (See, Id.). Rather, in
that document Plaintiffs discuss a request to amend their
Complaint. Specifically, Plaintiff assert that they seek to
add further claims for relief including a claim of
negligence, breach of contract, “breach of unjust
enrichment, ” violations of good-faith and
fair-dealing, violations of procedural due process, and
intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Id.).
Plaintiffs fail to proffer any factual allegations in support
of these claims; Plaintiffs merely list the claims.
(Id.). Plaintiffs assert that these claims
“give this Court both subject matter and personal
jurisdiction in this case.” (Id.).
January 28, 2019, Defendants filed their first Motion to
Dismiss. [Docket No. 15]. In their Motion, Defendants argue
the present case should be dismissed because this Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over the claims contained in
January 28, 2019, the Honorable Nancy E. Brasel referred all
dispositive and non-dispositive motions in the present case
to the undersigned. (Order [Docket No. 20]).
January 30, 2019, Plaintiffs, pursuant to Rule 15 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, filed their timely Amended
Complaint. [Docket No. 24]. Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint
is now the operative complaint in the present case.
Factually, Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint is materially
and substantially similar to their original Complaint. On the
basis of the same general factual allegations, Plaintiffs, in
their Amended Complaint, purport to raise claims of (1)
negligence, (2) violation of good faith and fair dealing, and
(3) “breach of unjust enrichment.” (Id.
at 8-14). As relief, Plaintiffs now seek
“general damages in excess of $75, 000.00 per
claim”; “punitive damages of $150, 000,
000”; and “attorney fees and costs and any other
relief this Court see[s] fit.” (Id. at 14).
February 5, 2018, Defendants filed their second Motion to
Dismiss. [Docket No. 28]. Defendants renew their argument
that the present case should be dismissed because this Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claims contained
in Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. Oral arguments on
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, [Docket No. 28], are
scheduled to be heard before the undersigned on March 21,
2019. (Notice of Hearing [Docket No. 31]).
February 12, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a “Motion to Strick
[sic] Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, and Enter
Default.” [Docket No. 35]. In their Motion, Plaintiffs
argue that the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss were
untimely, and therefore, according to Plaintiffs,
Defendants' Motions to Dismiss must be stricken.
(Id.). Further, Plaintiffs ...