Sarah F Johnson v. Nationstar Mortgage et al

Filing 8

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: JURISDICTION by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 10/5/2016. (vdr)

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

CV 16-7266 FMO (JCx)

Title

Sarah F. Johnson v. Nationstar Mortgage, et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

Sept. 28, 2016

Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge

Vanessa Figueroa

None

None

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorney Present for Plaintiff(s):

Attorney Present for Defendant(s):

None Present

None Present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Re: Jurisdiction

On September 27, 2016, pro se plaintiff filed a complaint in this court against several
defendants, including NBS Default Services (“NBS”), appearing to assert state-law claims for
wrongful foreclosure and fraud. (See Dkt. 1, Complaint). Subject matter jurisdiction is predicated
on diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (See id. at ¶ 6).
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized
by Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114
S.Ct. 1673, 1675 (1994). The courts are presumed to lack jurisdiction unless the contrary appears
affirmatively from the record. See DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 n. 3, 126
S.Ct. 1854, 1861 (2006). Federal courts have a duty to examine jurisdiction sua sponte before
proceeding to the merits of a case, see Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583, 119
S.Ct. 1563, 1569 (1999), “even in the absence of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y&H
Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 501, 126 S.Ct. 1235, 1237 (2006).
When federal subject matter jurisdiction is predicated on diversity of citizenship pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. 1332(a), complete diversity must exist between the opposing parties.1 See Caterpillar
Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68, 117 S.Ct. 467, 472 (1996) (stating that the diversity jurisdiction
statute “applies only to cases in which the citizenship of each plaintiff is diverse from the
citizenship of each defendant”). Plaintiff appears to be a citizen of California. (See Dkt. 1,
Complaint at ¶ 1). NBS is alleged to be a citizen of California, (id. at ¶ 2), and another defendant
that plaintiff refers to simply as “Trustee” (id. at ¶ 3) is alleged to be from “Long Beach,
California[.]” (Id.). Thus, it does not appear that complete diversity of citizenship exists, and
plaintiff should have filed her complaint in state court.

1

In relevant part, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) provides that a district court has diversity
jurisdiction “where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, . . . and is
between . . . citizens of different States” or “citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a
foreign state[.]” 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a)(1)-(2).
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

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

CV 16-7266 FMO (JCx)

Date

Title

Sarah F. Johnson v. Nationstar Mortgage, et al.

Sept. 28, 2016

Nor has plaintiff alleged that the matter in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold
of $75,000. (See, generally, Dkt. 1, Complaint); 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that no later than October 5, 2016, plaintiff shall show cause
in writing why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s
response shall be supported by a declaration as necessary. Failure to submit a response by
the deadline set forth above may be deemed as consent to dismissal without prejudice of
the action.

00
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

vdr

Page 2 of 2