Williams v. Huha et al
Filing
8
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Dismissal Without Leave to Amend signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 12/5/2012. Objections to F&R due by 1/7/2013. (Martinez, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
LANA K. WILLIAMS,
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
REX LEE HUHA; OLD REPUBLIC
)
INSURANCE CO.; USF REDDAWAY
)
INC; YRC WORLDWIDE INC.; ROBERT )
KOENIG; FIRST TRANSIT GALLAGHER )
BASSETT; THE ACCIDENT
)
ATTORNEY’S GROUP INC.; AND THE )
CITY OF MADERA,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
1:12-cv-1888 AWI GSA
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL WITHOUT
LEAVE TO AMEND
(Doc. 2)
20
21
INTRODUCTION
22
Plaintiff, Lana K. Williams, (“Plaintiff”), appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, filed
23
the instant civil complaint on November 16, 2012. Plaintiff has named Rex Lee Huha, Old
24
Republic Insurance, YRC Worldwide Inc., Robert Koenig, First Transit Ghallegher Bassett, The
25
Accident Attorney’s Group Inc., and the City of Madera as Defendants. (collectively,
26
“Defendants”). The Court has screened the complaint and recommends that the complaint be
27
dismissed without leave to amend.
28
///
1
1
2
DISCUSSION
A.
Screening Standard
3
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court must conduct an initial review of the
4
complaint for sufficiency to state a claim. The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof
5
if the court determines that the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim
6
upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
7
from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the court determines that the complaint fails to state
8
a claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be
9
cured by amendment.
10
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
11
pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not
12
required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
13
conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing
14
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). Plaintiff
15
must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its
16
face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual
17
allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusion are not. Id. at 1949.
18
A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
19
which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in
20
support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding,
21
467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v.
22
Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a
23
complaint under this standard, the Court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in
24
question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the
25
pro se pleadings liberally in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d
26
443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v. McKeithen,
27
395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).
28
///
2
1
B.
2
Plaintiff’s Allegations
Plaintiff alleges that she was injured in an accident that occurred on November 16, 2009,
3
while riding the transportation system in the City of Madera.1 Although it is unclear from the
4
complaint, she alleges that her attorney, Robert Koenig from the Accident Attorney’s Group
5
mishandled her case including failing to file her case in court as agreed upon. It also appears that
6
Plaintiff is bringing claims for personal injuries against the City of Madera based on its
7
relationship with the Transit System. Plaintiff alleges “insurance bad faith,” “personal injury”
8
and “legal malpractice” as causes of action. She seeks ten million dollars in damages and costs.
9
C.
10
Analysis
Based on the above facts, Plaintiff cannot establish that federal jurisdiction is proper.
11
Federal courts can adjudicate only those cases in which the United States Constitution and
12
Congress authorize them to adjudicate which are essentially those cases involving diversity of
13
citizenship (in which the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 and is
14
between citizens of different states), or a federal question, or to which the United States is a
15
party. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332; See also, Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375
16
(1994); Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545, 109 S.Ct. 2003, 2008 (1989). As discussed below,
17
Plaintiff has failed to establish that federal jurisdiction exists. The United States is not a party in
18
this action and no federal question is presented. Similarly, several of the Defendants are citizens
19
of California so complete diversity of jurisdiction cannot be established.
20
1.
Federal Question
21
Plaintiff’s complaint alleges personal injury, insurance bad faith, and legal malpractice as
22
causes of action. Although these causes of action are not properly pled, they all appear to be
23
state law claims. Thus, no federal questions are presented.
24
2.
25
Similarly, Plaintiff is unable to establish diversity jurisdiction. “Federal courts are courts
26
Diversity Jurisdiction
of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. at 377. “They
27
28
1
Plaintiff is advised that her claims may be barred by the statute of limitations given that this incident
occurred several years ago.
3
1
possess only that power authorized by Constitution or a statute, which is not to be expanded by
2
judicial decree.” Id. (internal citations omitted). “It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this
3
limited jurisdiction and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting
4
jurisdiction.” Id. (internal citations omitted); see also Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chem. Co.,
5
443 F.3d 676, 684 (9th Cir.2006).
6
“Subject matter jurisdiction based upon diversity of citizenship requires that no defendant
7
have the same citizenship as any plaintiff.” Tosco Corp. v. Communities for a Better Env't, 236
8
F.3d 495, 499 (9th Cir.2001) (per curiam), abrogated on other grounds by Hertz Corp. v. Friend,
9
––– U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 1181 (2010). “A plaintiff suing in federal court must show in his
10
pleading, affirmatively and distinctly, the existence of whatever is essential to federal
11
jurisdiction, and, if he does not do so, the court ... on discovering the [defect], must dismiss the
12
case, unless the defect be corrected by amendment.” Id. (quoting Smith v. McCullough, 270 U.S.
13
456, 459, 46 S.Ct. 338, 70 L.Ed. 682 (1926)).
14
Here, Plaintiff is a citizen of California. It is clear from the pleadings that Defendants
15
City of Madera, Robert Koenig, and the Accident Attorney’s Group are all citizens of California.
16
These defendants are necessary parties given Plaintiff’s claims. Therefore, there is no complete
17
diversity between the parties and diversity jurisdiction does not exist.
18
///
19
///
20
///
21
///
22
///
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
4
1
2
RECOMMENDATIONS
For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that Plaintiff would be unable to state a
3
cognizable claim even if leave to amend were given. Accordingly, it is recommended that
4
Plaintiff’s complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND for lack of federal
5
jurisdiction. This dismissal shall be without prejudice.
6
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the Honorable Anthony W.
7
Ishii pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days after being
8
served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the
9
Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and
10
Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time
11
may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th
12
Cir. 1991).
13
14
15
16
17
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
6i0kij
December 5, 2012
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
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?