Maurice W. Brown v. MERS Inc et al

Filing 22

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge Otis D. Wright, II:The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE, in writing, no later thanOctober 2, 2017, why this Court should not dismiss this case for lack of subjectmatter jurisdict ion. Should Plaintiff wish to amend his Complaint in order to allege facts sufficient to satisfy the requirements for federal subject matter jurisdiction, he must do so no later than October 2, 2017. Failure to timely respond to this Order may result in dismissal of this action without further notice. (lc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

MAURICE BROWN, an individual,
Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No. 5:17-cv-0654-ODW-SP
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE
LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION

v.

15 MERS, INC.; NBS DEFAULT

SERVICES, LLC; and WELLS FARGO
16 BANK, N.A., et al.; and DOES 1 to 50,
inclusive
17

Defendants.

18
19
20

On April 6, 2017, Plaintiff Maurice Brown filed this action pro se against

21

Defendants MERS, Inc. (“MERS”), NBS Default Services, LLC (“NBS”), and Wells

22

Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”). (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that

23

Defendants violated mortgage company loan procedures and seeks title to certain real

24

property, along with monetary and punitive damages. (Compl. 4–5.) Plaintiff also

25

asserts that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section

26

1332, which provides federal courts with jurisdiction over cases where the parties are

27

completely diverse. (See Compl. 3.)

28

1

1

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction that may hear cases only as

2

authorized by the U.S. Constitution and Congress. U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1; see

3

also Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Federal

4

courts have original jurisdiction where an action arises under federal law, or where the

5

plaintiff’s citizenship is diverse from each defendants’ citizenship and the amount in

6

controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a). Because Plaintiff does not

7

assert a federal claim pursuant to section 1331, only diversity citizenship under

8

section 1332(a) is at issue in this case.

9

Pursuant to section 1332(a), federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over

10

cases between “citizens of different States,” when the “matter in controversy exceeds

11

the sum or value of $75,000.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). “The diversity jurisdiction

12

statute, as construed for nearly 200 years, requires that to bring a diversity case in

13

federal court against multiple defendants, each plaintiff must be diverse from each

14

defendant.” Lee v. Am. Nat. Ins. Co., 260 F.3d 997, 1004 (9th Cir. 2001).

15

Federal courts have an obligation to determine the existence of subject matter

16

jurisdiction, regardless of whether the parties raise the issue. See Augustine v. United

17

States, 704 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1983). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3)

18

requires that, “[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter

19

jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Under Rule

20

12(h)(3), “a court may raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction, sua sponte, at

21

any time during the pendency of the action . . . .” Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d

22

822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002).

23

Plaintiff does not allege sufficient facts in the Complaint to allow the Court to

24

make a determination of whether there is complete diversity among the parties.

25

Plaintiff alleges that he is a citizen of the State of California and that Defendant

26

MERS is incorporated under the laws of, and has its principal place of business in, the

27

State of Virginia. (Compl. 3–4.) But, Plaintiff fails to allege the citizenship of Wells

28

Fargo or NBS. (Id.) Additionally, Plaintiff provides a California mailing address for

2

1

Wells Fargo. (Id. at 2.) If Wells Fargo is incorporated, or maintains its principal

2

place of business, in California, then it would be considered a California citizen for

3

jurisdictional purposes and there would not be complete diversity of the parties. See

4

28 U.S.C. § 1332(c) (providing that a corporation shall be deemed a citizen of every

5

State in which it has been incorporated or where it has its principal place of business);

6

see also Am. Surety Co. v. Bank of Cal., 133 F.2d 160, 162 (9th Cir. 1943) (finding

7

that a national bank is a citizen of the state where it has its principal place of

8

business).

9

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE, in writing, no later than

10

October 2, 2017, why this Court should not dismiss this case for lack of subject

11

matter jurisdiction. Should Plaintiff wish to amend his Complaint in order to allege

12

facts sufficient to satisfy the requirements for federal subject matter jurisdiction, he

13

must do so no later than October 2, 2017.

14
15

Failure to timely respond to this Order may result in dismissal of this action
without further notice.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

September 20, 2017

20
21
22

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28

3