John Omavel Luciano et al v. Chase Bank et al

Filing 13

ORDERT TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Gary A. Feess. This Court must have federal question or diversity jurisdiction in order to hear Plaintiff's case, and Plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to support either. It is therefore unclear why the Cou rt should have jurisdiction. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE no later than Thursday, January 9, 2014, as to why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Failure to respond will be deemed consent to dismissal of this action. See document for details. (smo)

LINK: 11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No.

CV 13-7896 GAF-RZx

Date

Title

John Omavel Luciano v. Chase Bank et al

Present: The Honorable

December 6, 2013

GARY ALLEN FEESS

Stephen Montes Kerr
Deputy Clerk

None
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None

None

Proceedings:

(In Chambers)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On October 25, 2013, Jose Jaime Montero brought this action on behalf of Plaintiff John
Omavel Luciano, via “power of attorney,” against Chase Bank. (Docket No. 1, [Complaint
(“Compl.”)].) The Court issued an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction on November 8, 2013. (Docket No. 5 [11/8/13 Order].) Plaintiff has now
responded, however he has not addressed the jurisdictional defects present in his initial
Complaint. (Docket No. 11 [Not. to the Court (“Not.”)].)
Plaintiff’s response is, to put it bluntly, nonsensical. Sentence fragments with no apparent
relationship to one another are combined to form paragraphs. A series of federal statutes and
treaties are cited that touch on everything from the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 to the
definition of the word “settle” as it pertains to certain admiralty claims—even though this
appears to be a case sounding in fraudulent foreclosure. (Not. at 2, 4; see 10 U.S.C. § 4801; 12
U.S.C. § 95a.)
Therefore Plaintiff is once again instructed that federal courts are courts of limited
jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing jurisdiction rests upon the party asserting it.
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. Of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). This can be done either
by asserting federal question jurisdiction, or by asserting diversity jurisdiction.
With respect to federal question jurisdiction, “a suit ‘arises under’ federal law ‘only when
the plaintiff’s statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon federal law.”
Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 50 (2009) (quoting Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v.
Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908)). Simply quoting federal statutes, which clearly have no
bearing on this case or any other case Plaintiff might conceivably bring, without creating a
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 3

LINK: 11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No.

CV 13-7896 GAF-RZx

Date

Title

December 6, 2013

John Omavel Luciano v. Chase Bank et al

connection to the allegations of the Complaint, is insufficient to meet the standard described in
Vaden.
In addition, diversity jurisdiction exists where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000
and the matter is between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). “Diversity
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 requires complete diversity, i.e. every plaintiff must be
diverse from every defendant.” Osborn v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 341 F. Supp. 2d 1123,
1126 (E.D. Cal. 2004). For purposes of § 1332(a), an individual’s citizenship is based on the
location of his domicile—“[his] permanent home, where [he] resides with the intention to remain
or to which [he] intends to return.” Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.2d 853, 857–58 (9th
Cir. 2001). A corporation is deemed to be a “citizen of any State by which it has been
incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business.” Id. at § 1332(c)(1)
(emphasis added). And “[a]ll national banking associations shall . . . be deemed citizens of the
State in which they are respectively located.” A national banking association is deemed to be
“located” for the purposes of citizenship in the state in which its main office, as set forth in its
articles of incorporation, is located. Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 307
(2006). While Plaintiff alleges an amount in controversy of $756,000, (Compl. at 2), neither his
Complaint nor his response to the Court’s prior order allege the citizenship of any of the parties
involved in the action. He therefore does not meet the requirements necessary for invoking this
Court’s diversity jurisdiction.
In order to assist Plaintiff in responding to this order to show cause, the Court provides
here the information for the Federal Pro Se Clinic. The Federal Pro Se Clinic in Los Angeles is
located in:
The United States Courthouse
312 N. Spring Street, Room G-19, Main Street Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90012
and can be reached at 213-385-2977, Ext. 270. Plaintiff is urged to check the website or call for
available hours.
Finally, in its prior order the Court informed Mr. Montero that he may not represent
Plaintiff because he is not an admitted attorney. (11/8/13 Order at 2.) Under the Local Rules of
this District, a pro se individual may represent only himself. C.D. Cal. R. 83-2.2.1. Mr.
Montero has disregarded this statement, and continues to act on Plaintiff’s behalf. (See Not.) In
other words, whether he is a “Secured Party Creditor” or not, (Resp. at 2), Mr. Montero may not
represent Plaintiff in this case.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 3

LINK: 11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No.

CV 13-7896 GAF-RZx

Date

Title

December 6, 2013

John Omavel Luciano v. Chase Bank et al

This Court must have federal question or diversity jurisdiction in order to hear Plaintiff’s
case, and Plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to support either. It is therefore unclear why
the Court should have jurisdiction. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE
no later than Thursday, January 9, 2014, as to why this action should not be dismissed for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction. Failure to respond will be deemed consent to dismissal of this
action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of 3