Legal Opinion

Rose v. a & L MOTOR SALES

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Decided November 22, 1988No. Civ. A. 86-2693PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM ORDER

COHILL, Chief Judge.

Presently before the Court is the issue of whether plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. At a status conference on July 27, 1988, the Court, sua sponte, ordered the parties to consider and brief the basis of federal court jurisdiction over this controversy. For the reasons set forth below, we will dismiss this action.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, Eleanor A. Rose, purchased a Nissan 300-ZX from defendant A & L Motor Sales (“A & L”) on April 19, 1986 for $22,007. Plaintiff alleges that the car was covered by a limited…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Thorsen v. Iron and Glass BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  2. George A. MacKenzie v. Chrysler CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1979
  3. DeLuca v. Fidelity BankSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  4. Simmons v. Taylor Childre Chevrolet-Pontiac, Inc.District Court, M.D. Georgia · 1986

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Frank Griffin Volkswagen, Inc. v. SmithDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1992
  2. Barnes v. West, Inc.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 2003
  3. Golden v. Gorno Bros., Inc.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 2003
  4. Kruger v. Subaru of America, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1998
  5. Jiminez v. Going Forward, Inc.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1998

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API