United States District Court, C.D. California
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Not Present.
Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present.
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge.
Proceedings: (In Chambers): Order DISMISSING action
Upon review of Plaintiff's Complaint, the Court concludes that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the action and so DISMISSES it sua sponte without prejudice.
On October 27, 2014, Plaintiff Mark Lawson (" Plaintiff") filed an action against Defendants Sannette Gite, Sannette Gite as Successor Trustee of the Vaughn Family Trust, ULP Enterprises, Inc., Lions Proof, LLC, M& R Bookkeeping Tax Services, LLC, Brandon Terrell-Anderson, I Work 4 U Entertainment, LLC, Tatatabom, Inc., Jung Hyun Park, Dmico Anderson, and Kramerwood Place 8940 Land Trust (collectively, " Defendants"). See Dkt. # 1.
Plaintiff alleges that a property in Los Angeles was left to him as sole beneficiary to the Vaughn Family Trust dated November 6, 1997, but that Defendants Gite and Anderson conspired to defraud Plaintiff out of his beneficial interest property records. See Compl . ¶ ¶ 20-22. Plaintiff believes Anderson used Lions Proof, M& R and I Work 4 U " to play a shell game of recording transfers of title to make it seem like they had title to the property when they did not." Id. ¶ 23. Plaintiff also believes Defendants filed known false documents in the Los Angeles County Recorder's Office. Id. ¶ 27.
In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action against Defendants: (1) declaratory relief; (2) breach of fiduciary responsibility; (3) unlawful conversion; (4) violation of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 3439, et seq. ; (5) violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (6) violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1986; (7) unfair business practices; and (8) violation of California's Business & Professions Code § 17200. See Dkt. # 1.
II. Legal Standard
Generally, subject matter jurisdiction is based on the presence of a federal question, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or on complete diversity between the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Courts " have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exist, even in the absence of a challenge from any party." Arbaugh v. Y& H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514, 126 S.Ct. 1235, 163 L.Ed.2d 1097 (2006). The Court may sua sponte raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction at any stage of the proceedings. Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 455, 124 S.Ct. 906, 157 L.Ed.2d 867 (2004). Thus, " [w]henever it appears . . . that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court shall dismiss the action." Arbaugh, 546 U.S. at 506 (quoting Kontrick, 540 U.S. at 455).
Here, Plaintiff alleges both federal question and diversity jurisdiction, but based on the allegations, neither § ...