Austin v. Budget Rental Car, Inc.
Filing
59
ORDER DISMISSING CASE, VACATING HEARING, AND DENYING 57 MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/16/2021)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
13
14
GEORGE J. AUSTIN,
Plaintiff,
15
16
No. 3:20-cv-06229-WHA
v.
17
BUGDET RENTAL CAR, INC., et al.,
18
Defendant.
19
ORDER DISMISSING CASE,
VACATING HEARING, AND
DENYING MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
20
21
22
INTRODUCTION
In this breach of contract and insurance case against rental car companies and financial
23
institutions, the magistrate judge granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, dismissed the
24
complaint, but offered leave to amend. The amended complaint still lacks federal subject-matter
25
jurisdiction. The suit is DISMISSED.
26
27
28
STATEMENT
Pro se plaintiff George Austin filed the instant case in September 2020. His original
complaint alleged quite the set of claims against Budget Rental Car, Inc. (“Budget”). In addition to
1
breach of contract, the complaint tied Budget to “a very strange pattern of behavior,” allegedly
2
masterminding incentivized stalking, one instance of stealing plaintiff’s car, and dangerous
3
maneuvers by other drivers directed at plaintiff while on the highway. Threats of violence
4
culminated in plaintiff being rear-ended at a high speed and even being held at gunpoint (Compl. at
5
12–14).
6
Magistrate Judge Alex Tse granted plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis but
7
dismissed also the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim and for
8
want of federal jurisdiction. Judge Tse also noted that the “highly unusual” allegations of
9
“vigilantism,” stickups at gunpoint, and almost syndicate-like behavior against a well-known rental
car company created a narrative “incredible enough to suggest that it is not based on provable
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
facts” (Dkt. No. 5 at 2).
12
Plaintiff declined magistrate-judge jurisdiction on September 18, 2020. Upon reassignment,
13
and following a barrage of other filings, plaintiff ultimately filed a timely amended complaint.
14
This order now reviews the sufficiency of the amended complaint per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
15
ANALYSIS
16
Without jurisdiction, a federal court cannot hear a suit. Subject-matter jurisdiction arises
17
when a complaint poses a federal question or if parties are of diverse citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. §§
18
1331, 1332.
19
Federal-question jurisdiction stems from the presence of one or more legal claims in the
20
complaint that “arise under” federal law, that is, (1) the asserted claim finds its origin in federal
21
law, or (2) a state-law claim raises a substantial and disputed federal issue, resolution of which will
22
not disrupt the congressionally approved balance between federal and state courts. See 28 U.S.C. §
23
1331; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Manning, 578 U.S.___, 136 S. Ct. 1562,
24
1569–70 (2016).
25
Jurisdiction under the first test requires a federal claim for relief. The amended complaint
26
recites no such claim, so jurisdiction only exists if some substantial dispute of federal law, under
27
the second prong, nonetheless remains. Because plaintiff cites California decisions applying
28
California law, no federal issue presents itself. Nevertheless, plaintiff asserts “[i]n Austin v.
2
1
Budget, et. al. several plaintiffs’ [sic.] claims for bringing suit are based in federal law,” and he
2
does cite one federal statute, 49 U.S.C. § 30106(b), which refers to financial responsibilities of
3
vehicle owners and business entities that rent motor vehicles (Amd. Compl. at 11, 54). The
4
section, however, is not the basis of a claim, nor does it create a dispute of federal law within
5
the state claims. In fact, the statute emphasizes that § 30106(b) does not “[supersede] the law
6
of any State,” thereby bolstering the complaint-wide invocation of California state law.
7
Federal-question jurisdiction failing, diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity
8
between citizens of different states with an amount in controversy that surpasses $75,000. See
9
NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840 F.3d 606, 613–14 (9th Cir. 2016); Grancare, LLC v. Mills ex
rel. Thrower, 889 F.3d 543, 548 (9th Cir. 2018); 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). For a corporation to be
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
considered a resident of a certain state, its formal site of incorporation and principal place of
12
business must be supplemented with affiliations in that state of so continuous and systematic a
13
nature as to render that corporation “at home” there. See Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117,
14
139 (2014).
15
Plaintiff’s complaint craters because several defendants reside in California, just like plaintiff
16
(Dkt. No. 50). This order takes judicial notice, via records from the California Secretary of State,
17
“whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned,” that both UNCLE (CA Entity No. C0331374)
18
and Premier Community (CA Entity No. C0147141) credit unions are California corporations,
19
duplicative with principal locations in Livermore and Stockton, respectively. Khoja v. Orexigen
20
Therapeutics, 899 F.3d 988, 999 (9th Cir. 2018); see Business Search, CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF
21
STATE, https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov/ (last accessed Feb. 14, 2021). Without considering the
22
amount in controversy, § 1332 jurisdiction fails.
23
CONCLUSION
24
This Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and does not address whether the amended
25
complaint states a claim. The suit is DISMISSED. The hearing is VACATED. The motion for
26
extension of time to file is DENIED. Leave to amend will not be allowed due to futility. If plaintiff
27
28
3
1
2
wishes to pursue this action, he must do so by way of appeal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
3
4
Dated: February 16, 2021.
5
6
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
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?