The opinion of the court was delivered by: Matsumoto, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff filed the instant action on May 26, 2011. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to prosecute.
On May 26, 2011, plaintiff Antonio Capistran ("plaintiff") commenced this action against Theodore Carbone ("Carbone") and J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. ("J.B. Hunt") (collectively, "defendants"), to recover for injuries plaintiff allegedly sustained when a truck operated by Carbone and owned by Carbone's employer, J.B. Hunt, "started to move while the plaintiff [who was operating a forklift] was loading stock into the aforementioned truck." (ECF No. 1, Complaint ("Compl.") ¶¶ 25, 26.) Plaintiff alleges that plaintiff's injuries from the accident "were due solely and wholly as a result of the careless and negligent manner in which the defendants owned, operated and controlled theirs [sic] motor vehicle without this plaintiff in any way contributing thereto." (Id. ¶ 28.)
I.Dismissal for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
As an initial matter, this case must be dismissed because the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. "A party seeking relief in the district court must at least plead facts which bring the suit within the court's subject matter jurisdiction." Espada v. New York Bd. of Elections, No. 07 Civ. 7622, 2007 WL 2588477, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2007); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1) (requiring that a complaint filed in federal court contain "a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction").
This court's subject-matter jurisdiction is limited and is set forth generally in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under these statutory provisions, federal jurisdiction is available only when a "federal question" is presented (see id. at § 1331) or the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 (see id. at § 1332). As explained below, plaintiff's complaint fails to allege facts to support any basis for federal jurisdiction.
A.No Basis for Federal Question Jurisdiction
Plaintiff's complaint does not present a basis for federal question jurisdiction because plaintiff's action arises out of a personal injury dispute governed by state law, not a claim "arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States," as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
B. No Basis for Diversity Jurisdiction
Similarly, plaintiff's complaint does not present a basis for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because the facts do not allege that the parties are completely diverse and that the amount in controversy exceeds the statutory minimum of $75,000.
"It is well established that for a case to come within [diversity jurisdiction grounded in 28 U.S.C. § 1332] there must be complete diversity and that diversity is not complete if any plaintiff is a citizen of the same state as any defendant." Cresswell v. Sullivan & Cromwell, 922 F.2d 60, 68 (2d Cir. 1990). For purposes of determining diversity jurisdiction, "a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of every State and foreign state by which it has been ...