Pomares v. Sutter Family Corporation et al

Filing 6

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATION to Dismiss Complaint 1 , signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 10/30/15. Referred to Judge O'Neill; 14-Day Deadline. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12

1:15-cv-00838 MJS
RICHARD POMARES,

13
v.

14
15

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO
Plaintiff, DISMISS COMPLAINT

SUTTER FAMILY CORPORATION, et
al.,

16

Defendants.

17
18
19

I.

INTRODUCTION

20

Plaintiff Richard Pomares ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, filed his complaint

21

against defendants Sutter Family Corporation, Mike Manzella, Ridge Sutter, Mary Sutter,

22

Anthony Drew Rowe, and The Law Offices of Anthony Drew Rowe ("Defendants"). He

23

seeks relief under the Federal Declaratory Judgement Act ("DJA"). His claims arise out

24

of actions connected to the lease of his residence and a resulting unlawful detainer

25

action in state court. (Complaint, ECF No. 1.)

26

Because Plaintiff fails to raise a federal question or show complete diversity

27

among the parties, he lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and his complaint must be

28

dismissed.
1

1

II.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

2

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must conduct an initial review of

3

this complaint for sufficiency to state a claim. The Court must dismiss a complaint or

4

portion thereof if it determines that the action has raised claims that are legally "frivolous

5

or malicious," "fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted," or that seek

6

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §

7

1915(e)(2)(B). "Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have

8

been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . .

9

the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C.

10

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

11

III.

FACTUAL SUMMARY

12

The dispute arises out of a lease to Plaintiff's residence in Modesto, California.

13

Plaintiff asserts that he entered into a lease agreement with property manager

14

Defendant Mike Manzella. (Compl., ¶ 15.) Manzella, possibly acting on behalf of other

15

named Defendants, brought an unlawful detainer action against Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶ 17.)

16

Attorney Defendant Rowe was hired to litigate the case. (Id. at ¶¶ 17-18.) Plaintiff

17

attended a hearing in the unlawful detainer action and entered into a settlement

18

agreement which, among other things, required that he vacate the premises. (Id. at ¶¶

19

22-23.) However, Plaintiff asserts that he entered the agreement under duress and in

20

response to Defendant Rowe's threats to report criminal charges against him. (Id.)

21

Plaintiff asserts that the settlement terms Rowe presented to the state court were false.

22

(Id. at ¶¶ 23-27.) The state court issued writs of possession to Defendants and a writ to

23

vacate to Plaintiff. (Id.) The writs were to be executed on June 3, 2015. (Id.)

24

Plaintiff filed the instant action with this Court on June 2, 2015. He seeks

25

declaratory relief finding the state court judgment void and declaring that all money paid

26

by Plaintiff to Defendants for the lease of the property resulted from theft and extortion.

27

(Id.)

28

///
2

1

IV.

ANALYSIS

2

A.

3

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and lack inherent or general

4

subject matter jurisdiction. Federal courts can adjudicate only those cases authorized by

5

the United States Constitution and Congress. Generally, such cases involve diversity of

6

citizenship or a federal question, or cases in which the United States is a party.

7

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 128 L. Ed. 2d 391

8

(1994); Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545, 109 S. Ct. 2003, 104 L. Ed. 2d 593 (1989).

9

Federal courts are presumptively without jurisdiction over civil actions. Kokkonen, 511

10

U.S. at 377. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction is never waived and may be raised by the

11

Court sua sponte. Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Prods., Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-

12

95 (9th Cir. 1996). "Nothing is to be more jealously guarded by a court than its

13

jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is what its power rests upon. Without jurisdiction it is nothing." In

14

re Mooney, 841 F.2d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 1988).

15

Lack of Jurisdiction and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)

1.

Federal Question Jurisdiction

16

Under federal question jurisdiction, district courts are authorized to exercise

17

original jurisdiction in "all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of

18

the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A civil action can "arise under" federal law in two

19

ways. Gunn v. Minton,

20

directly, "a case arises under federal law when federal law creates the cause of action

21

asserted." Id. If, however, a claim finds its origins in state rather than federal law, federal

22

jurisdiction will lie only "if a federal issue is: (1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed,

23

(3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the

24

federal-state balance approved by Congress." Id.; see also Grable & Sons Metal

25

Products, Inc. v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 314, 125 S. Ct. 2363, 162 L. Ed. 2d

26

257 (2005). With respect to declaratory judgment claims, "it is settled law that "[t]he

27

operation of the Declaratory Judgment Act is procedural only and does not confer arising

28

under jurisdiction." California Shock Trauma Air Rescue v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 636

U.S.

, 133 S. Ct. 1059, 1064, 185 L. Ed. 2d 72 (2013). Most

3

1

F.3d 538, 543 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 339 U.S.

2

667, 671, 70 S. Ct. 876, 94 L. Ed. 1194 (1950)). As such, courts look to the subject

3

matter of the underlying dispute to determine jurisdiction over declaratory judgment

4

claims. Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, 134 S. Ct. 843, 848, 187 L.

5

Ed. 2d 703 (2014).

6

Here, Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment relating to the terms of his lease and a

7

settlement of an unlawful detainer action initiated against him by Defendants. (See

8

generally, Compl.) To the extent that Plaintiff is challenging the terms of the agreements

9

with Defendants or any improper inducement into the agreements, those claims rely on

10

state breach of contract and fraud claims, and do not form a basis for federal question

11

jurisdiction. Plaintiff has not alleged any other federal basis for his complaint.

12

Accordingly, even though Plaintiff presents his claim under the Federal DJA, he has not

13

established that the underlying claims are based on a federal question. Plaintiff has not

14

established subject matter jurisdiction based on the nature of the claims presented.

15

2.

Diversity Jurisdiction

16

As described above, it appears that Plaintiffs underlying legal claims are founded

17

in contract, tort, or other state law. Such state law claims can proceed in federal court

18

only if Plaintiff properly alleges diversity jurisdiction. "Section 1332 of Title 28 confers

19

jurisdiction on federal courts where there is diversity of citizenship between plaintiffs and

20

defendants. Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between the parties—each

21

defendant must be a citizen of a different state from each plaintiff." Diaz v. Davis (In re

22

Digimarc Corp. Derivative Litig.), 549 F.3d 1223, 1234 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Strawbridge

23

v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 267, 2 L. Ed. 435 (1806)).

24

Plaintiff has not properly alleged diversity of citizenship. Plaintiff states that he is a

25

resident of California. (Compl., ¶ 4.) Plaintiff alleges that but for not knowing the principle

26

place of business of Defendant Sutter Family Corporation, the remaining defendants are

27

residents of California. (Id. ¶¶ 5-9.) As both Plaintiff and many, if not all, of the

28

Defendants reside in California, there is not complete diversity of the parties. Plaintiff has
4

1

not established subject matter jurisdiction and this Court may not adjudicate the claims

2

presented.

3

V.

RECOMMENDATION

4

Accordingly, it is hereby recommended that the complaint be dismissed.

5

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned District Judge,

6

pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days after

7

being served with the Findings and Recommendation, any party may file written

8

objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be

9

captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation." Any reply

10

to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the

11

objections. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

12

waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834,

13

839 (9th Cir. 2014).

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 30, 2015

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5