Chukwudebe v. Lu et al
Filing
24
ORDER Re Dismissal. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 4/23/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/23/2014)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
ROSEMARY N. CHUKWUDEBE,
9
Plaintiff,
10
v.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
No. C-13-5466 EMC
PONSGRI LU, et al.,
12
ORDER RE DISMISSAL
Defendants.
___________________________________/
13
14
15
Previously, the Court temporarily stayed the case at bar and ordered Plaintiff Rosemary N.
16
Chukwudebe to show cause as to why this Court should retain subject matter jurisdiction over her
17
case. See Docket No. 19 (Order at 2) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367). In her response to the order, Ms.
18
Chukwudebe argued that there is diversity jurisdiction and submitted a second amended complaint
19
(“SAC”), which alleges, inter alia, that there is such jurisdiction. See Docket Nos. 20-21 (SAC and
20
response to OSC).
21
Ms. Chukwudebe was not permitted to file a SAC, both because of the Court’s stay and
22
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, which allows only one amendment as a matter of course. See
23
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)-(2). However, in the interest of justice, the Court shall consider the contents
24
of the SAC to determine whether it does in fact have jurisdiction over the case.
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
1
The Court concludes that it does not. Ms. Chukwudebe has not pled a federal cause of action
2
in her SAC.1 Thus, there is no federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. As to Ms.
3
Chukwudebe’s assertion that there is diversity jurisdiction, that too is not supported by the very
4
allegations of her complaint. Even if her damages were in excess of $75,000, diversity jurisdiction
5
requires complete diversity. “Complete diversity means that each of the plaintiffs must be a citizen
6
of a different state than each of the defendants.” Howard v. Farmers Ins. Co., No. CV 12-01068
7
DDP (JCx), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50154, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2014). Here, Ms. Chukwudebe
8
admits that she is a citizen of California. See Docket No. 21 (Resp. at 2). Even if some of the
9
named defendants are not citizens of California, others clearly are – e.g., Christopher Pirrone, David
Pirrone, Steve Gohari, Bernard J. Maryanski, Anthony O. Egbase, Onyinye Anyama, Chike
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Emenike, Victoria Orafa, and Allan Wilcox, each of whom Ms. Chukwudebe describes in her
12
complaint as a “California Lawyer.” SAC ¶¶ 7-8, 10, 15-16, 24-27.
13
The only issue remaining, therefore, is whether the Court should retain or decline to exercise
14
supplemental jurisdiction. Because there are no claims over which the Court has original
15
jurisdiction, the Court deems it appropriate to decline supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28
16
U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2)-(3) (providing that a court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
17
over a claim if “the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district
18
court has original jurisdiction” or if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has
19
original jurisdiction”).
20
The Court therefore dismisses this case in its entirety. Ms. Chukwudebe is advised that this
21
ruling does not bar her from filing suit in state court to obtain relief. The Court further advises Ms.
22
Chukwudebe that, should she wish to pursue relief in state court, she should promptly take action or
23
her state court action may later be time barred. Cf. id. § 1367(d) (providing that “[t]he period of
24
limitations for any claim asserted under subsection (a), and for any other claim in the same action
25
that is voluntarily dismissed at the same time as or after the dismissal of the claim under subsection
26
1
27
28
While the caption of the SAC does refer to “constitutional violations,” the body of the
complaint reflects that Ms. Chukwudebe’s substantive claims are for wrongful foreclosure,
professional malpractice, extrinsic fraud, fraud and conspiracy to defraud, conversion, quiet title,
declaratory relief, and violation of California Business & Professions Code § 17200.
2
1
(a), shall be tolled while the claim is pending and for a period of 30 days after it is dismissed unless
2
State law provides for a longer tolling period”).
3
4
The Clerk of the Court is instructed to enter judgment and close the file in the case in
accordance with this opinion.
5
6
IT SO ORDERED.
7
8
Dated: April 23, 2014
9
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
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?