UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 5, 2012
TITLE MARLENE PERAZA
BANK OF AMERICA N.A., ET AL.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Dolly M. Gee, United States District Judge
Present: The Honorable DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
VALENCIA VALLERY NOT REPORTED Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s) Attorneys Present for Defendant(s) None Present None Present Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS-ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
On October 7, 2011, Plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court [Doc. # 3]. The complaint lacks a statement indicating the basis for this Court's subject matter jurisdiction in violation of Local Rule 8-1.*fn1
Federal district courts are of limited jurisdiction. Alcala v. Holder, 563 F.3d 1009, 1016 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Cary v. Curtis, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 236, 244, 11 L.Ed. 576 (1845)). Although Defendant Bank of America, N.A. does not raise the issue in its pending motion to dismiss [Doc. # 8], this Court nonetheless has an obligation to examine sua sponte whether it has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this lawsuit. United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Feidt v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp., 153 F.3d 124, 128 (3d Cir. 1998)).
No jurisdictional basis is apparent from the face of the complaint. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), courts have diversity jurisdiction if the action arises between "citizens of different States" and at least $75,000 is in controversy. To establish diversity jurisdiction, there must be "complete diversity between the parties-each defendant must be a citizen of a different state from each plaintiff." Diaz v. Davis (In re Digimarc Corp. Derivative Litig.), 549 F.3d 1223, 1234 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 267, 2 L.Ed. 435 (1806)). Both Plaintiff and Defendant Quality Loan Service Corp. appear to be California citizens, thus defeating diversity. Plaintiff lists a California address in the caption of her complaint and Quality also has a California address (see, e.g., Compl., Ex. A at 2).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, district courts have jurisdiction over "all
civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the
United States." A case "arises under" federal law within the meaning
of Section 1331 "if 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." Proctor v. Vishay Intertechnology Inc., 584
F.3d 1208, 1219 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Empire Healthchoice
Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677, 689-90, 126 S.Ct. 2121, 165
L.Ed.2d 131 (2006)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff's
claims, however, do not appear to arise under federal law.*fn2
Consequently, there appears to be no federal question
Therefore, Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff shall file her response by no later than March 20, 2012. Failure to timely file a satisfactory response will result in the dismissal of this action.*fn3
IT IS SO ORDERED.