Edward J. Pierce et al v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB et al

Filing 29

(IN CHAMBERS) COURT ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson: The Court... orders Plaintiffs to show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs' response to this order to show cause shall be filed by August 28, 2017. The failure to file a timely or adequate response to the order to show cause may result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice. Please refer to the Court's order for additional information. (cr)

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

CV 17-4512 PA (KSx)

Title

Edward Pierce & Jeannie Hobert v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, et al.

Present: The
Honorable

Date

August 16, 2017

PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Kamilla Sali-Suleyman

Not Reported

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None

None

Proceedings:

IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER

The parties are ordered to show cause why they should not file a Notice of Related Case as
required by Local Rule 83-1.3 indicating that this action is related to Jeanie Hobert v. Wilmington
Savings Fund, FSB, et al., Case No. CV 16-657 CAS (PLAx) and/or Jeanie Hobert v. Wilmington
Savings Fund, FSB, et al., Case No. CV 16-4205 CAS (PLAx). The parties’ responses to the order to
show cause shall be filed no later than August 28, 2017. The filing of a Notice of Related Case shall be
deemed a sufficient response to the order to show cause.
The Court additionally notes that the Complaint filed by plaintiffs Edward Pierce & Jeannie
Hobert, who are appearing pro se, alleges that this Court “has Jurisdiction because this Case is arising
under Federal violations of Title 33 U.S.C. Section 931” and “jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1341” and “42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for continuing violations of Plaintiff’s inalienable
rights under UCC 1-308.” Despite these allegations concerning the Court’s jurisdiction, the Complaint
only alleges state law claims for: (1) breach of contract; (2) fraud; (3) quiet title; and (4) injunctive
relief.
The Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that “[a] pleading that sets forth a claim for
relief must contain a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction . . . .” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8(a)(1). This District’s Local Rules further provide that “[t]he statutory or other basis for the
exercise of jurisdiction by this Court shall be plainly stated in . . . any document invoking this Court’s
jurisdiction.” Local Civil Rule 8-1. Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction only over matters
authorized by the Constitution and Congress. Bender v. Williamsport Area School District, 475 U.S.
534, 541, 106 S. Ct. 1326, 1331, 89 L. Ed. 2d 501 (1986). In seeking to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction,
Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th
Cir. 1986).
“Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331 vests in federal district courts ‘original jurisdiction’ over ‘all civil
actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.’” Empire Healthchoice
Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677, 689, 126 S. Ct. 2121, 2131, 165 L. Ed. 2d 131 (2006)
(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1331). “A case ‘aris[es] under’ federal law within the meaning of § 1331 . . . if ‘a
well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 3

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

CV 17-4512 PA (KSx)

Date

August 16, 2017

Title

Edward Pierce & Jeannie Hobert v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, et al.

plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.’” Id.
(quoting Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for So. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 27-28,
103 S. Ct. 2841, 77 L. Ed. 2d 420 (1983)). The “mere presence of a federal issue in a state cause of
action” does not automatically confer federal-question jurisdiction. Merrell Dow Pharms. Inc. v.
Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 813, 106 S. Ct. 3229, 3234, 92 L. Ed. 2d 650 (1986). If the complaint does
not specify whether a claim is based on federal or state law, it is a claim “arising under” federal law only
if it is “clear” that it raises a federal question. Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996).
“Congress has given the lower federal courts jurisdiction to hear, originally or by removal from a
state court, only those cases in which a well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates
the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial
question of federal law.” Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28, 103
S. Ct. 2841, 2856, 77 L. Ed. 2d 420 (1983). The “well-pleaded complaint” rule “severely limits the
number of cases in which state law ‘creates the cause of action’ that may be initiated in or removed to
federal district court.” Id. at 9-10, 103 S. Ct. at 2846, 77 L. Ed. 2d 420. A case may arise under federal
law “where the vindication of a right under state law necessarily turned on some construction of federal
law.” Id. at 9, 103 S. Ct. at 2846, 77 L. Ed. 2d 420. “[F]ederal jurisdiction demands not only a contested
federal issue, but a substantial one, indicating a serious federal interest in claiming the advantages
thought to be inherent in a federal forum.” Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg.,
545 U.S. 308, 313, 125 S. Ct. 2363, 2367, 162 L. Ed. 2d 257 (2005).
The absence of a federal cause of action is a relevant factor to be considered in assessing
whether a federal issue is substantial. Id. at 318, 125 S. Ct. at 2370, 162 L. Ed. 2d 257; Merrell Dow
Pharm. Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 811-12, 106 S. Ct. 3229, 3233-34, 92 L. Ed. 2d 650 (1986).
Merely using the potential violation of a federal statute to form part of the basis for a state law cause of
action does not transform the cause of action into a federal claim. Merrell Dow, 478 U.S. at 811-12, 106
S. Ct. at 3233-34, 92 L. Ed. 2d 650. Such references to federal violations to support state law causes of
action do not support federal jurisdiction:
One only needed to consider the treatment of federal violations generally
in garden variety state tort law. . . . A general rule of exercising federal
jurisdiction over state claims resting on federal mislabeling and other
statutory violations would thus have heralded a potentially enormous shift
of traditionally state cases into federal courts. Expressing concern over
the “increased volume of federal litigation,” and noting the importance of
adhering to “legislative intent,” Merrell Dow thought it improbable that
the Congress, having made no provision for a federal cause of action,
would have meant to welcome any state-law tort case implicating federal
law “solely because the violation of the federal statute is said to [create] a
rebuttable presumption [of negligence] . . . under state law.”
Grable & Sons, 545 U.S. at 318-19, 125 S. Ct. at 2370, 162 L. Ed. 2d 257 (alterations in original)
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 3

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

CV 17-4512 PA (KSx)

Date

August 16, 2017

Title

Edward Pierce & Jeannie Hobert v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, et al.

(quoting Merrell Dow, 478 U.S. at 811-12, 106 S. Ct. at 3233-34, 92 L. Ed. 2d 650).
In many situations, where the violation of a federal statute is one of several independent
allegations supporting a state law cause of action, courts have determined that the state law cause of
action does not “necessarily turn” on the construction of the federal statute. Rains v. Criterion Sys.,
Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 345-46 (9th Cir. 1996); see also id. at 346 (“When a claim can be supported by
alternative and independent theories—one of which is a state law theory and one of which is a federal
law theory—federal question jurisdiction does not attach because federal law is not a necessary element
of the claim.”).
Plaintiffs’ references to 18 U.S.C. § 1341, 33 U.S.C. § 931, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 do not
establish this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction because the Complaint does not actually allege a claim
under any of these federal laws, and instead seeks relief based only on state law causes of action.
Moreover, none of those federal laws provide Plaintiffs with a viable federal claim in this action.
Specifically, § 1341 is a criminal, not civil, statute and does not confer a private right of action.
Watkins v. Proulx, 235 Fed. Appx. 678, 679 (9th Cir. 2007); Wilcox v. First Interstate Bank, N.A., 815
F.2d 522, 533 n.1 (9th Cir. 1987); Wenzoski v. Citicorp, 480 F.Supp. 1056, 1062 (N.D. Cal. 1979).
Plaintiffs may not assert liability on the basis of this statute. Haney v. Cal-W. Reconveyance Corp., No.
SACV 10-1052 DOC, 2011 WL 2472244, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 21, 2011). Therefore, § 1341 cannot
serve as the basis for federal question jurisdiction. Reynolds v. Wilkerson, No. 13-CV-04855-LHK,
2014 WL 4062771, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2014) (citation omitted). Similarly, the Complaint’s
references to 33 U.S.C. § 931 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 do not create viable federal claims, because no
claim is actually alleged and any such claim would not be viable as a matter of law because this action
does not involve the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act for purposes of 33 U.S.C. §
931, and there is no state action as required for 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges causes of action for breach of contract, fraud, quiet title, and
injunctive relief only under state law. The Complaint’s references to 18 U.S.C. § 1341, 33 U.S.C. § 931,
and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 do not transform the state law causes of action into federal questions or create
federal jurisdiction. The Court therefore orders Plaintiffs to show cause in writing why this action
should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs’ response to this order to show
cause shall be filed by August 28, 2017. The failure to file a timely or adequate response to the order to
show cause may result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of 3