UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JS-6 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 12, 2012
BANK OF AMERICA, ET AL.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable John F. Walter, United States District Judge
CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS:
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:
PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
On September 4, 2012, Plaintiffs David Kissi and Edith Truvillion ("Plaintiffs") filed a Complaint in this Court, alleging that the Court had subject matter jurisdiction over the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and pursuant to a Consent Judgment and Order in action involving the Federal Trade Commission and Defendants. These allegations fail to demonstrate a proper basis for the subject matter jurisdiction of this Court. Moreover, Plaintiffs only assert claims arising under state law, and fail to allege the citizenship of any of the parties, as would be necessary for diversity jurisdiction.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) specifically states that "[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3), "a court may raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction, , at any time during the pendency of the action, even on appeal." Snell v. Cleveland, , 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Emerich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1194 n. 2 (9th Cir. 1988) (noting that "[i]t is elementary that the subject matter jurisdiction of the district court is not a waivable matter and may be raised at anytime by one of the parties, by motion or in the responsive pleadings, or sua sponte by the trial or reviewing court").
Accordingly, the Court hereby DISMISSES this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.