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)

Download PDF
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?