Robert v. Brown et al.

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
JULIE ROBERT,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEBRA BROWN, et al.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 1:26-cv-103
JUDGE CHARLES E. FLEMING
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendants Debra Brown and Phil McCall’s motion to dismiss the
complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (“Motion to Dismiss”) (ECF No. 20). 	For the
reasons that follow, the Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.
I. 	BACKGROUND
On January 15, 2026, Plaintiff Julie Robert filed a complaint against Defendants Debra
Brown, Phil McCall, and CubeSmart, L.P., alleging that Defendants unlawfully possess, control,
and threaten to dispose of her personal and business property valuing over $500,000, which
includes high-end antique furniture, medical equipment, tools, records, and documents. 	(ECF
No. 1). 	Plaintiff alleges that “Mover Dave Thompson” illegally seized her property, stored the
property at Cube Smart Unit 218 at 5440 S. Marginal Rd., Cleveland, Ohio 44114 (“Unit 218”)
since November 13, 2025, and Defendants illegally seized the property around December 13, 2025.
(Id. at PageID #3–4, ¶¶ 3–4, 7). 	Plaintiff asserts six causes of action: (i) a violation of the
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1030; (ii) conversion; (iii) replevin; (iv)
trespass to chattels; (v) civil conspiracy; and (vi) unjust enrichment. (Id. at PageID #5–6). Plaintiff
requests relief in the form of temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctions, the return of
Case: 1:26-cv-00103-CEF Doc #: 37 Filed: 03/25/26 1 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>

2
Plaintiff’s property, compensatory damages, and costs. (Id. at PageID #9). The complaint asserts
that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action based on: (i) diversity jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1332; and (ii) federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because
Plaintiff asserts a claim under the CFAA. (Id. at PageID #2, ¶¶ 1–2).
On February 25, 2026, Brown and McCall (collectively, “Individual Defendants”) filed the
instant Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 20). Plaintiff filed a timely opposition, (ECF No. 30), and
the Individual Defendants a reply in support, (ECF No. 33).
II. 	DISCUSSION
The Individual Defendants argue that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this
case. 	They first argue that there is no diversity jurisdiction because the amount in controversy
does not meet the $75,000 threshold. (ECF No. 20, PageID #275). They then argue that federal
jurisdiction is improper because the amount in controversy requirement is not satisfied and
Plaintiff has failed to establish grounds for injunctive relief. (Id.). Plaintiff responds that the Court
has subject matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and her claims
also arise under federal law. (ECF No. 30, PageID #614).
District courts have original jurisdiction of “all civil actions arising under the Constitution,
laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This type of jurisdiction arises where a
“well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the
Plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.”
Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Tr., 463 U.S. 1, 27 28, 103 S. Ct. 2841, 77 L. Ed.
2d 420 (1983). Here, the complaint explicitly invokes federal question jurisdiction and specifically
Case: 1:26-cv-00103-CEF Doc #: 37 Filed: 03/25/26 2 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>

3
asserts a cause of action under a federal statute—18 U.S.C. § 1030.1 (ECF No. 1, PageID #2, 5).
The Individual Defendants appear to have overlooked these portions of the pleadings and do not
challenge the validity of Plaintiff’s federal claim. Thus, the Court finds that it has subject matter
jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.2
III. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 20).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: March 25, 2026
____________________________________
CHARLES E. FLEMING
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
1 “In broad terms, the CFAA bars unauthorized access to computers. It provides a cause of action to ‘[a]ny person
who suffers’ a ‘loss’ of ‘at least $5,000’ in a single year due to a § 1030 violation.” Moxie Pest Control (Utah), Ltd.
Liab. Co. v. Nielsen, 164 F.4th 1195, 1199 (10th Cir. 2026) (citations omitted).
2 Because the Court has federal question jurisdiction, it is unnecessary at this time to determine whether the amount
in controversy exceeds $75,000 such that the Court also maintains diversity jurisdiction over this action. Even if
diversity jurisdiction were lacking, the Court would have supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims.
28 U.S.C. § 1367.
Case: 1:26-cv-00103-CEF Doc #: 37 Filed: 03/25/26 3 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>