Tanbeer S. Brar et al v. Dhaliwal et al

Filing 8

ORDER Sua Sponte DISMISSING Action for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/12/2021. CASE CLOSED. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
Case 1:21-cv-00162-DAD-JLT Document 8 Filed 02/16/21 Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 TANBEER SINGH BRAR AND AMANDEEP KAUR BRAR, Plaintiffs, 13 14 15 No. 1:21-cv-00162-DAD-JLT ORDER SUA SPONTE DISMISSING ACTION FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION v. PARGAT SINGH DHALIWAL, et al. Defendants. 16 17 18 On February 10, 2021, plaintiffs filed the pending pro se action, as well as moved for a 19 temporary restraining order and other relief. (Doc. Nos. 1–7.) The court reviewed the complaint 20 in conjunction with its review of the motion for a temporary restraining order. Plaintiffs allege 21 that this court has subject matter jurisdiction over their claims based on diversity of citizenship 22 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (See, e.g., Doc. No. 2.) However, plaintiffs’ subject matter 23 jurisdiction allegations are facially deficient because it appears all of the parties are residents of 24 California. 25 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 26 Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “[S]ubject matter jurisdiction of the district court is not a 27 waivable matter and may be raised at anytime by one of the parties, by motion or in the 28 responsive pleadings, or sua sponte by the trial or reviewing court.” Emrich v. Touche Ross & 1 Case 1:21-cv-00162-DAD-JLT Document 8 Filed 02/16/21 Page 2 of 3 1 Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1194 n.2 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 2 562 U.S. 428, 434–35 (2011) (noting objections to subject matter jurisdiction may be raised post- 3 trial). “It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of 4 establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377 5 (internal citation omitted). 6 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, federal courts have jurisdiction on the basis of diversity of 7 citizenship if the matter is between citizens of different states or nations and the amount in 8 controversy exceeds $75,000.1 In the complaint, plaintiffs allege that they are residents of 9 Bakersfield, California (Doc. No. 1 at 1) and that each of the defendants are also residents of 10 California. (Id. at 2.) In a diversity of citizenship case, no defendant may be a citizen of the same 11 state as any plaintiff. Plaintiff Amandeep Kaur Brar was previously advised of this requirement 12 by the undersigned in her previous case, Brar v. Dhawila, 1:21-cv-00069-DAD-JLT, which was 13 dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on January 29, 2021. 14 Plaintiffs’ jurisdictional allegations are facially deficient because plaintiffs and defendants 15 are all residents of California. Thus, this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the 16 pending action, and this case must be dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court 17 determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the 18 action.”) 19 ///// 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 In fact, the form complaint that plaintiff utilized provides the following explanation and direction: Federal Courts are courts of courts of limited jurisdiction (limited power). Generally, only two types of cases can be heard in Federal Court: cases involving a federal question and cases involving diversity of citizenship of the parties. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, a case arising under the United States Constitution or federal laws or treaties is a federal question case. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, a case in which a citizen of one state sues a citizen of another state or nation and the amount at stake is more than $75,000 is a diversity of citizenship case. In a diversity of citizenship case, no defendant may be the citizen of the same state as any plaintiff. 27 (Id. at 3.) The civil cover sheet provides similar instructions. (See Doc. No. 2.) 28 2 Case 1:21-cv-00162-DAD-JLT Document 8 Filed 02/16/21 Page 3 of 3 1 This court’s order dismissing plaintiffs’ action does not foreclose the ability of plaintiffs 2 to seek relief in another court, such as a California state court, if they believes it to be appropriate 3 to do so, but only prohibits them from prosecuting this action and seeking relief in federal court. 4 Accordingly: 5 1. 6 7 8 9 This action is dismissed, without prejudice, due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 12, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?