Wong v. Anderson et al
Filing
48
ORDER by Judge Charles R. Breyer granting 7 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; granting 11 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; granting 14 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; granting 16 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (crblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/27/2015)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
CHRISTINA WONG,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
15
No. 3:14-cv-05524-CRB
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO
DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
v.
ELLEN ANDERSON, ET AL.,
Defendants.
/
16
17
Now before this Court are four motions to dismiss filed by Ellen Anderson and Linda
18
Harrison (“The Harrison Team”) (dkt. 7), San Francisco Housing Development Corporation
19
(“SFHDC”) and David Sobel (dkt. 11), Borrower’s Best, Inc. and Lisa Fitts (dkt. 14), and the
20
City and County of San Francisco (“CCSF”) (dkt. 16) (collectively “Defendants”). In this
21
breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty action, Plaintiff Christina Wong, appearing
22
pro se, seeks specific performance from Defendants to complete a real estate transaction. In
23
filing her case in this Court ,Wong expressly seeks to relitigate claims that she unsuccessfully
24
pursued in state court. See Wong v. Harrison Team, No. CGC 13-535017 (Cal. Super. Ct.
25
Feb. 24, 2014); see also Compl. at 2 (dkt. 1) (reciting the result of the state action and
26
inviting this Court to “review and resolve the real transaction dispute”).
27
Defendants make motions to dismiss on the following grounds: (1) lack of subject-
28
matter jurisdiction; (2) res judicata as to Defendants Anderson, Harrison, and the Harrison
Team; and (3) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Federal Rule of
1
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Wong’s initial deadline to respond to the motions to dismiss filed
2
by the Harrison Team, SFHDC, and Borrower’s Best passed on February 2, February 4, and
3
February 6, respectively, without any filing from Wong. Also pending was a motion to
4
dismiss by CCSF, to which a response was due on February 13. On February 10, 2015, this
5
Court granted Wong’s motion for an extension of time (dkt. 26), giving her until February 20
6
to file written oppositions to all pending motions to dismiss. See Scheduling Order (dkt. 35).
7
The Court also put all parties on notice that it might rule on the motions to dismiss without a
8
hearing per Northern District of California Local Rule 7-1(b). Wong filed her opposition on
9
February 20, 2015. See Opposition (dkt. 42).
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
The Court first considers whether it has jurisdiction over this matter. If a federal
11
district court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction, it must dismiss the case. See Fed. R.
12
Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Unlike state courts, federal courts have limited jurisdiction: they may only
13
hear cases where they have jurisdiction over the “subject matter” of the dispute, as
14
determined by federal law and the Constitution. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of
15
Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Federal district courts may obtain subject-matter jurisdiction
16
if there is diversity of citizenship, if the case concerns a “federal question,” or if the
17
government is a party. See 28 U.S.C. § 1330 et seq.
18
A district court may have diversity jurisdiction if the parties in the case have diverse
19
citizenship, generally meaning that none of the plaintiffs and none of the defendants are
20
citizens of the same state. Id. § 1332. A district court may have federal question jurisdiction
21
if the case “aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Id. § 1331.
22
In determining whether a complaint raises a federal question, courts use the “well-pleaded
23
complaint rule.” The rule provides that “federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal
24
question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar
25
Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987).
26
Though the defendant makes the motion to dismiss, the plaintiff has the burden of
27
showing that the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction. See Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377. The
28
plaintiff must do so by including a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the
2
1
court has jurisdiction in her complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). When a plaintiff appears pro se,
2
as Wong does here, the complaint must “be liberally construed” and be “held to less stringent
3
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
4
(2007) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). However, a court “is not required to
5
accept legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot
6
reasonably be drawn from the facts alleged.” See Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d
7
752, 754–55 (9th Cir. 1994); see also Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d
8
266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982) (“[A] liberal interpretation of a [pro se] complaint may not supply
9
essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled.”). If a court dismisses a pro se
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
complaint, “[d]ismissal with prejudice and without leave to amend is not appropriate unless it
11
is clear . . . the complaint could not be saved by amendment.” Eminence Capital, LLC v.
12
Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003).
13
As a preliminary matter, to the extent Wong seeks to have this Court review the state
14
court’s final judgment, the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to do so. Atl. Coast Line
15
R. Co. v. Bd. of Locomotive Eng’rs, 398 U.S. 281, 296 (1970). Even assuming that Wong
16
alleges causes of action in this Complaint that are new or separate from the state action,
17
however, she has failed to meet her burden to show that this Court has subject-matter
18
jurisdiction on either federal question or diversity grounds.
19
Wong’s Complaint alleges that this Court has jurisdiction on federal question grounds
20
“because [the Complaint] arises under the law of the United States—a violation of the Fair
21
Housing Act of 1968.” Compl. at 1. The Fair Housing Act generally prohibits
22
discriminatory housing practices. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601–3619. Aside from that single
23
reference to the Act, however, the Complaint fails to allege any facts relating to
24
discrimination or causes of action that might arise under the Act. Even liberally construed,
25
the allegations contained in the Complaint are not enough on their face to show that the
26
Complaint raises a federal question under the Act. See Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373
27
F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). Without more, Wong does not meet her burden of showing
28
that the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction on federal question grounds.
3
1
Wong also has not—and seemingly cannot—establish subject-matter jurisdiction on
2
diversity grounds. Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between the parties,
3
meaning each plaintiff must be a citizen of a different state or country than each defendant.
4
Kohler v. Inter-Tel Technologies, 244 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2001). Wong appears to be
5
a citizen of California, and at least one (if not all) of the Defendants are also citizens of
6
California.
7
Wong has not carried her burden to prove that the Court has subject-matter
8
jurisdiction over this case. The Court therefore GRANTS the motions to dismiss for lack of
9
subject-matter jurisdiction.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
However, because Wong argues in her opposition that “what we have here is a
11
housing discrimination case,” see Opposition at 2, and because she appears pro se, the Court
12
also GRANTS Wong leave to amend her Complaint within 30 days of the date of this order.
13
No further extensions will be granted. Any amended complaint must clearly explain how the
14
amendments address the defects listed above. Failure to conform may result in dismissal
15
with prejudice.
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19
20
Dated: February 27, 2015
CHARLES R. BREYER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?