Chadda v. Burcke , 180 F. App'x 370 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                                            Opinions of the United
    2006 Decisions                                                                                                             States Court of Appeals
    for the Third Circuit
    5-12-2006
    Chadda v. Burcke
    Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
    Docket No. 05-1359
    Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
    Recommended Citation
    "Chadda v. Burcke" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1121.
    http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1121
    This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
    NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    Nos. 05-1359 and 05-2231
    __________
    SOLANGE CHADDA,
    Appellant
    v.
    ALLAN BURCKE; JEANINE GENDRECHI;
    MARIA TUMOLO; QVC INC;
    DIANE YOUNG
    _____________________
    Appeals From the United States District Court
    For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    (D.C. Civil No. 04-cv-04386)
    District Judge: Honorable Michael M. Baylson
    ________________________
    Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
    April 3, 2006
    Before:    ROTH, RENDELL, and AMBRO, Circuit Judges.
    (Filed: May 12, 2006)
    _______________
    OPINION OF THE COURT
    _______________
    PER CURIAM
    Solange Chadda appeals from the dismissal of her pro se complaint by the District
    Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.1 We will affirm.
    I.
    In 2004, Chadda filed a complaint designated as an antitrust case and making
    various allegations regarding the injuries she purportedly suffered from the use of a Diane
    Young cosmetic sold by QVC, Inc. Chadda subsequently filed an amended complaint
    making additional allegations about the conduct of the defendants. The District Court
    first granted Diane Young’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and lack of
    subject matter jurisdiction. Supplemental Appendix (“SAA”) 46-48. The District Court
    then granted the remaining defendants’, i.e., the QVC defendants’, motion to dismiss for
    lack of subject matter jurisdiction. SAA49.
    II.
    Our review of the District Court's grant of a motion to dismiss is plenary. Green v.
    America Online, 
    318 F.3d 465
    , 470 (3d Cir.) 2003. We accept as true the factual
    allegations in the complaint and “we draw all reasonable inferences in the light most
    favorable to the plaintiff.” 
    Id. The federal
    courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life
    Ins. Co., 
    511 U.S. 375
    , 377 (1994). The district courts have jurisdiction over federal
    questions, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and actions involving parties of diverse citizenship and a
    1
    Chadda’s initial untimely notice of appeal was docketed at C.A. No. 05-1359. After
    the District Court granted Chadda’s motion to extend the time to appeal, Chadda filed a
    second notice of appeal docketed at C.A. No. 05-2231. The two appeals have been
    consolidated.
    2
    minimum amount in controversy, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
    A.
    Section 4 of the Clayton Act provides for a private cause of action for damages by
    any person “injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the
    antitrust laws.” 15 U.S.C. § 15(a). Although this statute provides a remedy for
    consumers of goods or services for personal use, it does not encompass personal injuries.
    Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 
    442 U.S. 330
    , 339 (1979); see also 2660 Woodley Road Joint
    Venture v. ITT Sheraton Corp, 
    369 F.3d 732
    , 738 (3d Cir. 2004) (recognizing that a
    private plaintiff “must do more than simply show an injury causally linked to a violation
    of the antitrust laws”; plaintiff “must also prove antitrust injury, which is to say injury of
    the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
    Similarly, § 16 of the Clayton Act authorizes injunctive relief, but only for the threat of an
    antitrust injury. 15 U.S.C. § 26; In re Warfarin Sodium Antitrust Litig., 
    214 F.3d 395
    ,
    399 (3d Cir. 2000).
    We find that Chadda’s allegations, at most, assert personal injury. Thus, in the
    absence of the requisite injury to “business or property”, Chadda has not stated a claim
    under the antitrust laws. For the same reasons, Chadda’s allegations of racketeering do
    not state a claim under the civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
    (“RICO”). See 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) (only authorizing private cause of actions for persons
    injured in their “business or property”); Holmes v. Securities Investor Prot. Corp., 
    503 U.S. 258
    , 267 (1992) (recognizing that the RICO civil private action provision was
    3
    modeled after § 4 of the Clayton Act). Accordingly, Chadda’s complaint fails to state a
    claim under the District Court’s federal question jurisdiction.2
    B.
    Chadda’s complaint also fails to satisfy the requirements for diversity of
    citizenship jurisdiction. Because Chadda alleges that she and all of the QVC defendants
    are citizens of Pennsylvania, she fails to assert complete diversity of citizenship. See 28
    U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1); Midlantic Nat’l Bank v. Hansen, 
    48 F.3d 693
    , 696 (3d Cir. 1995)
    (recognizing that to satisfy § 1332(a)(1) jurisdiction no plaintiff can be a citizen of the
    same state as any defendant).
    III.
    Accordingly, the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Chadda’s
    complaint, and we will therefore affirm.3
    2
    In her brief, Chadda also alleges violations of other commerce and trade statutes. See
    Appellant’s Brief at 2-6, 8. However, because these claims were not raised in the District
    Court we will not consider them on appeal. See Ross v. Hotel Employees & Restaurant
    Employees Int'l Union, 
    266 F.3d 236
    , 242 (3d Cir. 2001).
    3
    To the extent Chadda seeks to have a different District Court Judge assigned to the
    case, see SAA142, 179, the request is denied as moot.
    4