The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hayes, Judge
The matters before the Court are the Motions to Dismiss the Complaint filed by Defendants Chase Merritt Residential, LLC, CM Fund III, LLC, and Wells Fargo Bank as successor and/or assign to Wachovia Bank, FSB. (ECF Nos. 3, 10).
On August 13, 2010, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated this action by filing the Complaint. (ECF No. 1). The Complaint alleges that Defendants violated federal and state law in conjunction with a loan transaction on June 28, 2005 related to real property known as 1028 La Casa Drive, San Marcos, California.
On September 3, 2010, Defendants Chase Merritt Residential, LLC and CM Fund III, LLC (collectively, "Chase Merritt") filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 3).
On September 10, 2010, Defendant Wells Fargo Bank as successor and/or assign to Wachovia Bank, FSB ("Wells Fargo") filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 10).
On October 4, 2010, Plaintiff filed an opposition to both pending Motions to Dismiss. (ECF Nos. 12, 13). Plaintiff contends that the Complaint should not be dismissed, and alternatively, requests leave to amend her Complaint.
On October 8, 2010, Wells Fargo filed a reply in support of its Motion to Dismiss, and Chase Merritt filed a reply in support of its Motion to Dismiss. (ECF Nos. 14, 15).
II. Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1)
Wells Fargo moves to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
A Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss addresses the Court's subject matter jurisdiction. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and lack inherent or general subject matter jurisdiction. Federal courts can only adjudicate those cases which the United States Constitution and Congress authorize them to adjudicate. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The presumption is that federal courts lack jurisdiction over civil actions, and the burden to establish the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction. See id. In the federal courts, subject matter jurisdiction may arise from either "federal question jurisdiction" or "diversity jurisdiction." Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987); see also 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332.
A. Diversity Jurisdiction
To invoke diversity jurisdiction, the complaint must allege that "the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between ... citizens of different States...." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
On Plaintiff's Civil Cover Sheet, Plaintiff indicated that the basis of subject matter jurisdiction is diversity. However, the Complaint fails to allege the citizenship of each party and fails to allege that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Plaintiff ...