Sanchez v. Andruss et al

Filing 63


Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 LUCILA S. MARIANO, No. C 10-3213 MMC 11 12 13 Plaintiff, v. ONEWEST BANK, FSB, et al, 14 Defendants. / ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION; AFFORDING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO AMEND 15 16 Before the Court is plaintiff Lucila S. Mariano’s complaint, filed January 30, 2013, 17 against defendants OneWest Bank, FSB and NDeX West, LLC.1 2 As discussed below, 18 however, said pleading fails to allege sufficient facts to support the court’s jurisdiction, and, 19 consequently, the above-titled action is subject to dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) 20 (providing “[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the 21 court must dismiss the action”). 22 Plaintiff alleges this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1332, which provides federal district courts with diversity jurisdiction over suits “between 24 . . . citizens of different States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). A corporation is a citizen of both 25 the “state by which it has been incorporated and of the state . . . where it has its principal 26 27 28 1 2 On April 3, 2013 the matter was reassigned to the undersigned. On January 30, 2013, plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. As it appears plaintiff is unable to pay the costs of this action, her application is hereby GRANTED. 1 place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Although plaintiff alleges she is a citizen of 2 California (see Compl. ¶ 3) and that each defendant is incorporated in Texas (see Compl. 3 ¶¶ 1-2), there is no allegation identifying the principle place of business for each of the 4 defendants. Consequently plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to support a finding of 5 subject matter jurisdiction. 6 Accordingly, the complaint is hereby DISMISSED for lack of subject matter 7 jurisdiction, and plaintiff is hereby afforded leave to amend to allege, if she can do so, 8 sufficient facts to support the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction over the above-referenced 9 lawsuit. Plaintiff’s amended complaint, if any, shall be filed no later than April 26, 2013. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 10, 2013 MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?