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