Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Joseph Allen, representing himself and proceeding in forma pauperis, sued Dave and Buster's Entertainment, Inc. and six individuals in the Eastern District of California on June 3, 2026. He alleges that, beginning around 2023, he agreed with the company's Fresno venue to receive a 20 percent commission credited toward future bookings in exchange for referring groups and events. He says the arrangement was approved by the general manager and confirmed in writing by another employee.
Allen further alleges the agreement was honored once, in November 2024, but that after he directed roughly $150,000 in business to the venue he was not paid commissions he calculates at no less than $18,000. He also alleges that after he pressed the commission issue and complained about a March 29, 2025 celebration, for which the venue was allegedly prepared for only 50 of more than 300 expected attendees, the venue refused all future bookings. He pleaded breach of contract, fraud, promissory estoppel, intentional interference with prospective business relations, and unjust enrichment, and seeks $1,320,500, including $990,000 in punitive damages. These are the plaintiff's allegations; the court made no findings on them.
On August 28, 2026, the court screened the complaint, concluded it failed to allege a basis for subject-matter jurisdiction, and gave Allen 30 days to file an amended complaint. The deadline passed with no filing from him.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone issued findings and recommendations, which are addressed to the assigned district judge and are not themselves a final judgment or dismissal order. He recommends dismissal without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, failure to prosecute, and/or failure to comply with the court's order, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 and Local Rule 110.
On jurisdiction, the court found no federal question because every claim arises under California law, so no federal law is implicated. It also found no diversity jurisdiction because the complaint and the civil cover sheet both indicate that Allen and all defendants are California citizens, which defeats the complete diversity required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Allen had checked both the federal question and diversity boxes on the cover sheet, but that did not supply a basis for jurisdiction.
Alternatively, the court applied the Ninth Circuit's five-factor test for Rule 41 dismissals. It found that the public interest in prompt resolution, the court's need to manage its docket, and the risk of prejudice from delay all favored dismissal. It said that recommending dismissal without prejudice, especially given the apparent lack of jurisdiction, addresses the availability of less drastic sanctions. The opinion does not separately analyze the policy favoring decisions on the merits. It concluded that Allen appears to have abandoned the action.
Key Takeaways
- A plaintiff who is pro se and proceeding in forma pauperis must still show a basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction, and the court may raise the defect on its own at any time.
- Checking both the federal question and diversity boxes on a civil cover sheet does not create jurisdiction when every claim arises under California law and the pleading shows all parties are California citizens.
- Missing a court-ordered deadline to amend after a screening order can independently support a recommendation of dismissal for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order.
- Because the recommended dismissal is without prejudice, it does not decide the merits of the commission dispute. The court noted in a footnote that California superior courts are courts of general jurisdiction not subject to these federal limits.
- Allen has 14 days from service to file objections of no more than 15 pages, and failing to object may waive his right to challenge the magistrate judge's factual findings on appeal.
Why It Matters
This is an unpublished magistrate judge's recommendation in a single pro se case, so it carries no precedential weight. It is a routine illustration of how federal courts screen in forma pauperis complaints and test them against the limits of federal jurisdiction. It shows how a plaintiff's own allegations, here shared California citizenship and purely state-law claims, can defeat jurisdiction without any defendant appearing.
Much remains open. The assigned district judge must still decide whether to adopt the recommendation after any objections, and until then no dismissal has been ordered. The court did not address whether the contract, fraud, or related allegations have merit, and it did not rule on whether or where Allen could refile.