Mariano v. OneWest Bank, FSB et al
ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION; AFFORDING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff's amended complaint, if any, shall be filed no later than April 26, 2013. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on April 10, 2013. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/10/2013)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
LUCILA S. MARIANO,
No. C 13-0425 MMC
ONEWEST BANK, FSB, et al,
ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS;
DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR LACK
OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION;
AFFORDING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO
Before the Court is plaintiff Lucila S. Mariano’s complaint, filed January 30, 2013,
against defendants OneWest Bank, FSB and NDeX West, LLC.1 2 As discussed below,
however, said pleading fails to allege sufficient facts to support the court’s jurisdiction, and,
consequently, the above-titled action is subject to dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3)
(providing “[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the
court must dismiss the action”).
Plaintiff alleges this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332, which provides federal district courts with diversity jurisdiction over suits “between
. . . citizens of different States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). A corporation is a citizen of both
the “state by which it has been incorporated and of the state . . . where it has its principal
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
place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Although plaintiff alleges she is a citizen of
California (see Compl. ¶ 3) and that each defendant is incorporated in Texas (see Compl.
¶¶ 1-2), there is no allegation identifying the principle place of business for each of the
defendants. Consequently plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to support a finding of
subject matter jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the complaint is hereby DISMISSED for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, and plaintiff is hereby afforded leave to amend to allege, if she can do so,
sufficient facts to support the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction over the above-referenced
lawsuit. Plaintiff’s amended complaint, if any, shall be filed no later than April 26, 2013.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 10, 2013
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge
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?