United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO
BARBARA A. McAULIFFE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Frank Silva (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se,
initiated this action on June 15, 2016. Plaintiff’s
suit appears related to real property located in Turlock,
California. (Doc. 1).
alleges: “The House was for sale for a year. Wanted me
to sign paper with out a loan number Michael Warda would not
give a loan number so I wouldnt sign & all Then they sold
house with out my signing.” Doc. 1 at 3 (unedited
text). As requested relief, Plaintiff states, “I didnt
get rent for one year & wanted me to sign papers with out
a loan & then came up with all these fees & I tried
to go to a lawyer but would make appointed or call back with
appointed.” Doc. 1 at 6 (unedited text).
names Michael S. Warda, Joelle J. Wendeln (Escrow Officer),
S.C. Fuel Cardlock System, Inc., and Louie A. Estrada as
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and lack inherent
or general subject matter jurisdiction. Federal courts can
adjudicate only those cases in which the United States
Constitution and Congress authorize them to adjudicate.
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375,
114 S.Ct. 1673, 1677 (1994). To proceed in federal court,
Plaintiff’s complaint must establish the existence of
subject matter jurisdiction. Federal courts are presumptively
without jurisdiction over civil actions, and the burden to
establish the contrary rests upon the party asserting
jurisdiction. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377, 114 S.Ct.
at 1677. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction is never waived
and may be raised by the court sua sponte. Attorneys
Trust v. Videotape Computer Products, Inc., 93 F.3d 593,
594 595 (9th Cir. 1996); Demery v. Kupperman, 7356
F.2d 1139, 1149 n. 8 (9th Cir. 1984). “If 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) (emphasis added).
to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, federal district courts have
diversity jurisdiction over civil actions “where the
matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75, 000,
” and where the matter is between “citizens of
different states.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).
Plaintiff has not shown that the parties are completely
diverse. The complaint indicates that Plaintiff and
Defendants Warda, Wendeln, and Estrad Michael Kirby are
citizens of California. Doc. 1 at 2-3. If the parties are
California citizens, this destroys the requisite
“complete diversity.” See Cook v. AVI Casino
Enterprises, Inc., 548 F.3d 718, 722 (9th Cir. 2008).
Thus, Plaintiff has failed to establish subject matter
jurisdiction based on diversity.
Federal Question Jurisdiction
to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal 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 either
where federal law creates the cause of action or ‘where
the vindication of a right under state law necessarily
turn[s] on some construction of federal law.’”
Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d
1086, 1088–89 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Franchise
Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1,
8–9, 103 S.Ct. 2841, 77 L.Ed.2d 420 (1983)). The
presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is
governed by the “well-pleaded complaint rule.”
Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392,
107 S.Ct. 2425, 963 L.Ed.2d 318 (1987). Under the
well-pleaded complaint rule, “federal jurisdiction
exists only ...