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
.
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?