Yelena Furmanova et al v. ABN AMR Mortgage Group Incorporation et al

Filing 24

MINUTES IN CHAMBERSORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court finds that Plaintiffs' December 18, 2012 response to the OSC fails to establish this Court's jurisdiction over the case. Accordingly, the action is DISMISSED without prejudice. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (jp)

JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No.

Date

CV 12-08607 DMG (JCGx)

December 28, 2012

Title Yelena Furmanova, et al. v. ABN AMR Mortgage Group Incorp., et
al.
Present: The Honorable

Page

1 of 2

DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

VALENCIA VALLERY
Deputy Clerk

NOT REPORTED
Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s)
None Present

Attorneys Present for Defendant(s)
None Present

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS—ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR LACK OF
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
On October 5, 2012, Plaintiffs Yelena Furmanova, Boris Volok, and David-Wynn Miller,
proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint in this Court against Defendants ABN AMR Mortgage
Group Incorporation, Commonwealth Land Title, and MERS [Doc. #1]. On October 15, 2012,
this Court issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) why this action should not be dismissed for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction [Doc. #5]. Plaintiffs failed to respond to the OSC, and on
November 15, 2012, this Court dismissed the action with prejudice [Doc. # 12]. On November
16, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. # 13], which the Court granted on
December 11, 2012 [Doc. # 16]. The Court set a new deadline of December 27, 2012 by which
Plaintiffs were to respond to the Court’s OSC.
Plaintiffs filed a document which the Court construes as an Amended Complaint on
December 18, 2012 [Doc. # 23]. The Amended Complaint, although shorter than the original
Complaint, fails to cure the jurisdictional defect that existed in its predecessor: the Amended
Complaint is indecipherable and does not set forth the claims Plaintiffs wish to bring against
Defendants or the facts on which those claims rely, let alone the basis for federal subject matter
jurisdiction. As noted in the OSC, the Court has an “independent obligation to determine
whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, __ U.S. __, 130 S.Ct. 1181,
1193, 175 L.Ed.2d 1029 (2010). Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing subject matter
jurisdiction. Sopcak v. N. Mountain Helicopter Serv., 52 F.3d 817, 818 (9th Cir. 1995).
Although a less stringent examination is afforded pro se pleadings, see Haines v. Kerner, 404
U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), the Amended Complaint provides no
reasonable basis on which the Court may find that it has subject matter jurisdiction over the case.
//
//
CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk vv

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

CV 12-08607 DMG (JCGx)

Date

December 28, 2012

Title Yelena Furmanova, et al. v. ABN AMR Mortgage Group Incorp., et
al.

Page

2 of 2

The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ December 18, 2012 response to the OSC fails to establish
this Court’s jurisdiction over the case. Accordingly, the action is DISMISSED without
prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk vv