Martin v. Renner

Filing 10

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. This case is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on 1/17/2017. (lblc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/17/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

San Francisco Division

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
YOHONIA MONIQUE MARTIN,

12

Case No. 16-cv-06748-LB

Plaintiff,
13

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

v.
14
IESHIA RENNER,

15

Defendant.
16
The court previously granted the plaintiff Yolanda Martin’s motion to proceed in forma

17
18

pauperis and dismissed her complaint with leave to amend because she did not describe what she

19

claims or the basis for the court’s jurisdiction.1 Ms. Martin thereafter emailed information to the

20

court’s email box, which the court filed as part of the record.2 She also filed a letter explaining

21

more about her dispute.3 The court dismisses the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

22

Jurisdiction is a threshold inquiry. A complaint must contain a short and plain statement of the

23

ground for the court’s jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). The plaintiff has the burden of

24

establishing jurisdiction. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377

25
rders
os.
7. itations are to material in the lectronic ase ile (“
citations refer to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents.

26

1

27

2

28

3

ECF No. 8.
etter

o. .

ORDER — No. 16-cv-06748-LB

”); pinpoint

1

(1994); Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Portage La Prairie Mut. Ins. Co., 907 F.2d 911, 912 (9th Cir. 1990).
Ms. Martin brings no federal claims that convey jurisdiction. She identifies Ms. Renner as the

2
3

person who was the “root” to Ms. Martin’s earlier federal case against Wells argo Bank. (

4

No. 9 at 2.) That case was filed in 2012 and involved Ms. Martin’s claim that Ms. Renner

5

withdrew money from Ms. Martin’s bank account without permission when Ms. Martin was

6

incarcerated.4 Ms. Martin opened the account in 1999, the account had $78,000 in it, and Ms.

7

Renner allegedly took $58,000.5 Ms. Martin also claimed that Wells Fargo closed the account and

8

mailed the remaining $20,000 to Ms. Martin’s address, and Ms. Martin’s mother thereafter

9

converted the $20,000.6 She charged Wells Fargo with negligence and related torts.7 (The case

10

settled.8) In this case she alleges conversion by Ms. Renner. This is a state-law claim.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

The court also lacks diversity jurisdiction, likely because the amount in controversy does not

12

exceed $75,000 and certainly because Ms. Renner and Ms. Martin both reside in California. See

13

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The amount in controversy apparently is Ms. Renner’s alleged conversion of

14

$58,000. (Ms. Martin alleges $1 billion in damages, but she does not support that claim.9) But she

15

also specifies that Ms. Renner was her friend and neighbor in California. The plaintiff and the

16

defendant thus are not citizens of different states, which defeats diversity jurisdiction.

17

The court thus dismisses the case because it lacks jurisdiction and directs the Clerk of the

18

Court to close the file. The dismissal is without prejudice to Ms. Martin’s filing her case in state

19

court (assuming that it is not barred by the statute of limitations).

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

Dated: January 17, 2017

______________________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

22
23
24

4

25

5

Id.

6

Id.

7

Id.

27

8

Minute rder, ase o.

28

9

26

omplaint, ase o.

-cv-

-cv-

ivil over heet

ORDER — No. 16-cv-06748-LB

o. .

-M

o.

-M

. -1.
2

.