Maurice W. Brown v. MERS Inc et al
ORDER DISMISSING CASE by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: On the face of Plaintiffs Complaint, subject matter jurisdiction appears to be lacking, and Plaintiff has not responded to the Courts Order to Show Cause. Therefore, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) .(lc) Modified on 10/6/2017 (lc).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MAURICE BROWN, an individual,
Case No. 5:17-cv-0654-ODW-SP
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
15 MERS, INC.; NBS DEFAULT
SERVICES, LLC; and WELLS FARGO
16 BANK, N.A., et al.; and DOES 1 to 50,
On September 20, 2017, the Court ordered pro se Plaintiff Maurice Brown to
show cause, no later than October 2, 2017, why this case should not be dismissed for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (ECF No. 22.) Specifically, the Court warned
Plaintiff that he had not alleged sufficient facts in the Complaint to allow the Court to
make a determination of whether there is complete diversity among the parties. (Id.)
To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s Order.
As explained in the Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff alleges that he is a citizen of
the State of California and that Defendant MERS is incorporated under the laws of,
and has its principal place of business in, the State of Virginia. (Compl. 3–4, ECF No.
1.) But, Plaintiff fails to allege the citizenship of Defendants Wells Fargo or NBS.
(Id.) Additionally, Plaintiff provides a California mailing address for Wells Fargo.
(Id. 2.) If Wells Fargo is incorporated, or maintains its principal place of business, in
California, then it would be considered a California citizen for jurisdictional purposes
and there would not be complete diversity of the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)
(providing that a corporation shall be deemed a citizen of every State in which it has
been incorporated or where it has its principal place of business); see also Am. Surety
Co. v. Bank of Cal., 133 F.2d 160, 162 (9th Cir. 1943) (finding that a national bank is
a citizen of the state where it has its principal place of business).
Federal courts have an obligation to determine the existence of subject matter
jurisdiction, regardless of whether the parties raise the issue. See Augustine v. United
States, 704 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1983). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3)
requires that, “[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Under Rule
12(h)(3), “a court may raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction, sua sponte, at
any time during the pendency of the action . . . .” Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d
822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002).
On the face of Plaintiff’s Complaint, subject matter jurisdiction appears to be
lacking, and Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s Order to Show Cause.
Therefore, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 6, 2017
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?