Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kirkeby v. Burns

United States District Court, S.D. California

March 13, 2015

ANASTASIA HELENE KIRKEBY, Plaintiff,
v.
LARRY BURNS aka LAWRENCE F. BURZYNSKI, et al., Defendants.

ORDER: (1) GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION (2) DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM AS MOOT (3) GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

ROGER T. BENITEZ, District Judge.

Before this Court is a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed by Defendants JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., and California Reconveyance Company. (Docket No. 26.)

BACKGROUND

On December 5, 2014, Mrs. Kirkeby brought this action asserting multiple claims against five defendants. (Docket No. 1.) On January 12, 2015, Plaintiff Anastasia Kirkeby filed a First Amended Complaint asserting seven state law claims: (1) violation of California Penal Code § 529, (2) California Civil Code § 3426, (3) California Penal Code § 502, (4) breach of the duty of loyalty and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, (5) conversion, (6) intentional interference with a contract, (7) California Business and Professions Code § 17200. Mrs. Kirkeby's First Amended Complaint removed three defendants and added three new defendants. She also added her husband, Glenn Kirkeby, as a co-plaintiff.

DISCUSSION

I. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

Defendants JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., and California Reconveyance Company argue this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs case. Plaintiff filed an Opposition.

A. Federal Question Jurisdiction

District courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions arising "under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint alleges that Defendants violated seven California state laws.[1] Because the Complaint alleges no federal claims, this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over this matter.

B. Diversity Jurisdiction

District courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions where (1) the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000, and (2) there is complete diversity of citizenship. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Complete diversity of citizenship exists where no plaintiff is from the same state as any Defendant. Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chern. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (2005).

Complete diversity does not exist here. Plaintiff alleges that she and her husband are citizens of California. She alleges that Defendant Larry Burns or Lawrence Burzynski is also a citizen of California. Because at least one plaintiff is a citizen of the same state of at least one defendant, this Court does not have diversity jurisdiction over this case.

Plaintiff failed to establish this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action. The Court therefore GRANTS Defendants' Motion ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.