Timothy Crawley et al v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc et al
Filing
27
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DISMISSING Action for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction by Judge Josephine L. Staton: Plaintiffs have not attempted to file an amended complaint or otherwise cure these jurisdictional defects. Accordingly, for the same reasons stated in the Court's previous Order, it now DISMISSES this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without prejudice to refiling in state court. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) See document for further information. (jp)
JS-6
____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.: 8:22-cv-00251-JLS-JDE
Title: Timothy Crawley et al v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. et al
Date: May 09, 2022
Present: HONORABLE JOSEPHINE L. STATON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
D. Rojas
Deputy Clerk
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF:
Not Present
N/A
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:
Not Present
PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR
LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
The Court may raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction, sua sponte, at any
time during the pendency of an action. See Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826
(9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that
it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”). As the party
invoking federal jurisdiction, Plaintiffs have the burden of establishing the existence of
subject matter jurisdiction. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377
(1994).
On February 19, 2022, the Court issued an Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte
Application for a Temporary Restraining Order to Restrain the Foreclosure Sale of
Plaintiffs’ Property. (Order, Doc. 14.) The Court denied the application finding that
Plaintiffs had “failed to carry their burden to establish federal jurisdiction.” (Id. at 2.)
The Order specified that the Complaint asserted only violations of California state law,
and, although it alleged the amount in controversy requirement was satisfied “because the
loan amount exceeds $1,000,000.00,” it did not invoke diversity jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1332 or make any allegations regarding Defendant’s citizenship. (See id. at
1-2 (citing Compl., Doc. 1, ¶¶ 2-3).) Despite being put on notice of these defects,
Plaintiffs have not attempted to file an amended complaint or otherwise cure these
jurisdictional defects.
_____________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
1
____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.: 8:22-cv-00251-JLS-JDE
Title: Timothy Crawley et al v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. et al
Date: May 09, 2022
Accordingly, for the same reasons stated in the Court’s previous Order, it now
DISMISSES this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without prejudice to
refiling in state court.
Initials of Deputy Clerk: droj
_____________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
2
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?