#Exeter finance corp complaints pro#

#: 3 Filed: 07/13/23 Page: 3 of 7 PageID #: 21 Although plaintiff does not appear to be bringing this action pursuant to the diversity statute, he asserts that Exeter Finance LLC is incorporated in Texas and has its principal place of business in Texas. Plaintiff claims that the jurisdictional basis for the present action is “breach of contract.1” On his “Civil Cover Sheet” attached to his Complaint, plaintiff claims that the jurisdictional basis for this action is “breach of contract.” In his complaint, plaintiff additionally claims: “breach of fiduciary duties 1 -2- Case: 4:23-cv-00836-HEA Doc. Plaintiff’s Complaint Plaintiff Brennen Hurt filed this action on June 29, 2023, by filing a form “Civil Complaint” naming Exeter Finance LLC and Jason Kulas, Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of Exeter, as defendants in this action.

#Exeter finance corp complaints pro#

In addition, affording a pro se complaint the benefit of a liberal construction does not mean that procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation must be interpreted to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel. 2004) (stating that federal courts are not required to “assume facts that are not alleged, just because an additional factual allegation would have formed a stronger complaint”). However, even pro se complaints are required to allege facts which, if true, state a claim for relief as a matter of law. A “liberal construction” means that if the essence of an allegation is discernible, the district court should construe the plaintiff's complaint in a way that permits his or her claim to be considered within the proper legal framework. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must give it the benefit of a liberal construction. When reviewing a pro se complaint under 28 U.S.C. 2016) (stating that court must accept factual allegations in complaint as true but is not required to “accept as true any legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation”).

#: 3 Filed: 07/13/23 Page: 2 of 7 PageID #: 20 true the facts alleged, but not legal conclusions or threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements.” Barton v. The court must “accept as Case: 4:23-cv-00836-HEA Doc. Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief is a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw upon judicial experience and common sense. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. To state a claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate a plausible claim for relief, which is more than a “mere possibility of misconduct.” Ashcroft v. § 1915(e)(2), the Court is required to dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Additionally, for the reasons discussed below, plaintiff will be directed to show cause as to why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. As a result, plaintiff will be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Upon consideration of the financial information provided with the motion, the Court finds plaintiff is financially unable to pay any portion of the filing fee. 4:23-CV-836 HEA OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on the motion of self-represented plaintiff Brennen Hurt for leave to commence this civil action without prepayment of the required filing fee. #: 3 Filed: 07/13/23 Page: 1 of 7 PageID #: 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION BRENNEN HURT, Plaintiff, v.