Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Emrit v. National Grid, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

July 14, 2015

RONALD SATISH EMRIT, Plaintiff,
v.
NATIONAL GRID, INC., ET AL., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

GEORGE A. O'TOOLE, Jr., District Judge.

BACKGROUND

On December 31, 2014, plaintiff Ronald Satish Emrit ("Emrit"), [1] currently a resident of Las Vegas, Nevada, filed a self-prepared handwritten Complaint against National Grid, Inc. and the Community Action Partnership of Providence ("CAPP"). Emrit asserts his causes of action are: (1) breach of contract; (2) violations of the Equal Protection, Due Process, and Privileges and Immunities Clauses; and (3) negligence. He sues the defendants for joint and several liability.

With respect to jurisdiction and venue, Emrit asserts that diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 exists because there is complete diversity and the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000.00. He alleges that he is a citizen of Nevada, that National Grid, Inc. has its principal place of business in Waltham, Massachusetts, and that CAPP has its principal place of business in Providence, Rhode Island. Additionally, Emrit asserts this Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 based on the alleged constitutional violations. Further, he asserts, without explanation, that venue is proper in this District.

Along with the Complaint, Emrit filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 2).

On January 13, 2015, Emrit filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Docket No. 5) seeking an Order enjoining the defendants from contacting him or his roommate about past due bills, and from referring to a "delinquent account" to a bill collection agency. Emrit also seeks a preliminary injunction requiring the defendants to pay his current electricity and gas bill with other utility providers in Las Vegas.

The same day, Emrit filed a Motion for a Default Judgment (Docket No. 6), a Motion to Subpoena Witnesses (Docket No. 7), a Motion to Compel Discovery (Docket No. 8), and a Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 9).

DISCUSSION

I. The Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Upon review of Emrit's financial affidavit, this Court finds that he has demonstrated sufficiently that he lacks funds to pay the $400.00 filing and administrative fees for this action. Accordingly, his Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 2) is ALLOWED.

II. Screening of the Complaint

Because Emrit is proceeding in forma pauperis, his Complaint is subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). This statute authorizes federal courts to dismiss actions in which a plaintiff seeks to proceed without prepayment of fees if the action is malicious, frivolous, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

In addition to the statutory screening requirements under § 1915, this Court has an independent obligation to inquire, sua sponte, into its own subject matter jurisdiction.

Because Emrit is proceeding pro se, this Court liberally construes his Complaint. Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Instituto de Educacion Universal Corp. v. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.