Amora et al v. Homesales Inc., California et al

Filing 9

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION. Signed by Judge JEFFREY S. WHITE on 7/11/12. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/11/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

DAWN AMORA AND CARLOS MORA,
Plaintiffs,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 12-03210 JSW
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR
LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION

v.

12

HOMESALES INC, et al.,

13

Defendants.
/

14
15

On June 20, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in this action, in which they allege that

16

this Court has diversity jurisdiction. On July 10, 2012, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application

17

for a temporary restraining order, in which they ask this Court to prevent Defendants from

18

evicting them. According to the ex parte application, an unlawful detainer action is pending in

19

state court, and that court is scheduled to hear a final judgment on July 13, 2012.

20

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life

21

Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Federal courts are under a duty to raise and decide

22

issues of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte at any time it appears subject matter jurisdiction

23

may be lacking. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Augustine v. United States, 704 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th

24

Cir. 1983). This Court only has original subject matter jurisdiction in diversity cases where the

25

matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000 and is between citizens of different states. 28

26

U.S.C. § 1332. No plaintiff can be a citizen of the same state as any of the defendants.

27

Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. 267 (1806).

28

//

1

According to Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Plaintiffs are residents of California. Defendant

2

California Reconveyance Company also is a resident of California. Therefore, based on the

3

face of the Complaint, the parties are not completely diverse. Plaintiffs do not allege any other

4

basis for federal jurisdiction.1

5

Accordingly, because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action, the

6

Court must dismiss this case. However, this ruling is without prejudice to Plaintiffs refiling

7

their claims in state court.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
Dated: July 11, 2012
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
Although Plaintiffs include a cause of action pursuant to the Declaratory
Judgment Act, that act does not provide an independent basis for jurisdiction. See, e.g.,
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corp., 642 F.3d 849, 853
(9th Cir. 2011) (“the DJA gave district courts the discretion to provide a type of relief that
was previously unavailable, but did not impliedly repeal[ ] or modif[y]’ the general
conditions necessary for federal adjudication (e.g., a federal question or diversity of
citizenship)”) (quoting Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 339 U.S.667, 672 (1950)).
1

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

Moreover, even if the Court has subject matter jurisdiction, and even if Plaintiffs had
demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, it is unlikely that the Court could grant
Plaintiffs the relief they request. Pursuant to the Anti-Injunction Act, a federal court “may
not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by
Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its
judgments.” 28 U.S.C. § 2283. “The limitations expressed in the Anti-Injunction Act ‘rest[]
on the fundamental constitutional independence of the States and their courts,’ Atlantic Coast
Line R.R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng’rs, 398 U.S. 281, 287 (1970), and reflect
‘Congress’ considered judgment as to how to balance the tensions inherent in such a system,’
Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon Corp., 486 U.S. 140, 146 (1988).” Sandpiper Village Condo.
Ass’n v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp., 428 F.3d 831, 842 (9th Cir. 2005). “[T]he Act is designed
to prevent friction between federal and state courts by barring federal intervention in all but
he narrowest of circumstances.” Id. Although there are exceptions to the Anti-Injunction
Act, “the court cannot discern ... how the request to simply stay the unlawful detainer action
falls into one of the exceptions listed in the Act.” Sato v. Wachovia Mortgage, FSB, 2012
WL 368423, *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2012).
2

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5
6

DAWN AMORA AND CARLOS MORA
et al,
Plaintiff,

7

HOMESALES INC et al,
/

Defendant.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

v.

8
9

Case Number: CV12-03210 JSW

12
13
14
15

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.
That on July 11, 2012, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing
said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office
delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

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

Carlos Mora
26801 Ridge Road
Willits, CA 95490
Dawn Amora
26801 Ridge Road
Willits, CA 95490
Dated: July 11, 2012
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk