Keppler v. Structured Asset Mortgage Investments II Trust 2007-AR4 et al

Filing 6

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 8/27/13 Recommending that this Action 1 be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to U.S. District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections to these F&R due within fourteen days. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAMES KEPPLER,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2: 13-cv-1731 KJM CKD PS

v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

STRUCTURED ASSET MORTGAGE
INVESTMENTS II TRUST 2007-AR4,
et al.,

16

Defendants.

17
Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This action was transferred from the United

18
19

States District Court, Southern District of New York, because the property which is the subject of

20

the action is located in the Eastern District of California and because plaintiff resides in this

21

District.

22

Plaintiff alleges diversity jurisdiction as the basis for subject matter jurisdiction. Diversity

23

jurisdiction is lacking in that the citizenship of the parties is not diverse because both plaintiff and

24

defendant Wells Fargo are citizens of California. See Taheny v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 878

25

F.Supp. 2d 1093 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (Wells Fargo is citizen of California). No other basis of subject

26

matter jurisdiction is evident in the complaint.1

27
28

1

Plaintiff also alleged federal question jurisdiction but no federal claim is raised in the
complaint.
1

1
2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.

3

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

4

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

5

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

6

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

7

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

8

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v.

9

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

10

Dated: August 27, 2013

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15

4 keppler1731.nosmj

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2