David Kissi v. Bank of America et al

Filing 5

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) DISMISSING ACTION FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge John F. Walter: on 9/4/2012, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in this Court, alleging that the Court had subject matter jurisdiction over the action pursuant to 28 U SC 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 as sert claims arising under state law, and fail to allege the citizenship of any of the parties, as would be necessary for diversity jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court hereby DISMISSES this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (jp)

JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
Case No.

CV 12-7540-JFW (MRWx)

Title:

David Kissi -v- Bank of America, et al.

Date: October 12, 2012

PRESENT:
HONORABLE JOHN F. WALTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Shannon Reilly
Courtroom Deputy

None Present
Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS:
None
PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS):

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:
None

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,
sua sponte, at any time during the pendency of the action, even on appeal.” Snell v. Cleveland,
Inc., 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.

Page 1 of 1

Initials of Deputy Clerk sr