Barbara Stover Banks; Gralin William Banks v. Tunic Group LLC

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 25-3253
__________
BARBARA STOVER BANKS;
GRALIN WILLIAM BANKS
v.
TUNIC GROUP LLC; IRIS MARIA RIOS;
SAUL RIOS; HERMINIO RIOS; CARLOS HERNANDEZ
Barbara Stover Banks,
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-16581)
District Judge: Honorable Madeline C. Arleo
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
July 27, 2026
Before: CHAGARES Chief Judge, HARDIMAN and FREEMAN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: July 28, 2026)
___________
OPINION*
___________
PER CURIAM
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
I.
The appellants, Barbara Stover Banks and Gralin W. Banks (collectively, “the
Bankses”), appeal the District Court’s order dismissing their complaint. We will affirm
the District Court’s judgment.
The Bankses brought this case in District Court alleging that their apartment’s
superintendent, management, and maintenance staff had entered their home without
permission and stolen their belongings. The Bankses stated that the District Court had
federal question jurisdiction and listed New Jersey as the state of citizenship for all
parties.1 The District Court screened the complaint and dismissed it sua sponte without
prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, providing the Bankses with leave to
amend. In lieu of amending their complaint, the Bankses appealed.2
II.
In their appeal, the Bankses argue that the District Court misapplied the law and
were prejudiced and biased against them. The Bankses argue that the District Court
should have applied federal anti-discrimination and criminal law instead of making a
determination regarding the existence of federal question jurisdiction.
1 They also listed New Jersey addresses for themselves and all but one of the appellees.
2 We construe their appeal as indicating that they stood on their complaint, thereby
rendering the District Court’s order final for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See
Batoff v. State Farm Ins. Co., 977 F.2d 848, 851 n.5 (3d Cir. 1992). Because the Notice
of Appeal was timely filed, we have jurisdiction under § 1291. We exercise plenary
review over the District Court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See
McCann v. Newman Irrevocable Tr., 458 F.3d 281, 286 (3d Cir. 2006).

-- 2 of 4 --

3
But we see no evidence of prejudice or bias,3 and in any event, district courts have
an obligation to assess their subject matter jurisdiction to hear a case before reaching the
merits. GBForefront, L.P. v. Forefront Mgmt. Grp., LLC, 888 F.3d 29, 34 (3d Cir. 2018).
It is the plaintiffs’ burden to demonstrate that the court has jurisdiction. Lincoln Benefit
Life Co. v. AEI Life, LLC, 800 F.3d 99, 105 (3d Cir. 2015).
The Bankses asserted that the District Court had subject matter jurisdiction on the
basis of a federal question. However, in their complaint they do not invoke the
Constitution or any federal laws or treaties of the United States.4 Thus, the District Court
correctly concluded that it did not have federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1331.
The Bankses also did not show that the District Court had diversity jurisdiction.
For diversity jurisdiction to exist, “no plaintiff may be a citizen of the same state as any
defendant.” GBForefront, L.P. v. Forefront Mgmt. Grp., LLC, 888 F.3d 29, 34 (3d Cir.
2018) (cleaned up); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The Bankses conceded that all parties
are citizens of New Jersey in their complaint.
3 Unfavorable rulings, without more, are insufficient. See Securacomm Consulting,
Inc. v. Securacom Inc., 224 F.3d 273, 278 (3d Cir. 2000); see also United States v.
Martorano, 866 F.2d 62, 68 (3d Cir. 1989) (stating that motions to recuse cannot rest on
“possibilities” and “unsubstantiated allegations”).
4 In their brief on appeal the Bankses cite “Civil rights Acts Title VIII of 1964
Harassment,” “Federal Harassment Protections 1967,” “Americans with Disabilities
Acts,” “2020 U.S. Code Title 18, “Crimes and Procedure,” and “Citation 18 U-S-C §
2112 (2020).” C.A. No. 8 at 4. But we ordinarily do not consider on appeal arguments
not presented to the District Court and, in any event, the Bankses do not explain how any
of these federal laws are implicated by the alleged theft of their property. Accordingly,
any such arguments are forfeited. In re Wettach, 811 F.3d 99, 115 (3d Cir. 2016).

-- 3 of 4 --

4
Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.

-- 4 of 4 --