Lisnawati v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company et al

Filing 14

ORDER GRANTING 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Shaina Lisnawati AND DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 4/16/2012. (hlkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/16/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
SHAINA LISNAWATI,

No. C 12-00940 DMR

Plaintiff,
11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
v.
12
13

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY,

14

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND
DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT
PREJUDICE

Defendants.
___________________________________/

15
16

On February 17, 2012, Plaintiff Shaina Lisnawati filed a complaint and an application to

17

proceed in forma pauperis in this action. On March 1, 2012, the court ordered Plaintiff to

18

supplement her application by submitting a statement indicating the full amount of the mortgage

19

owed on her home, and not just the monthly payment on the mortgage, by no later than March 9,

20

2012. Because Plaintiff did not timely file such supplemental information, the court ordered

21

Plaintiff to submit a statement explaining why she did not respond to the court’s March 1, 2012

22

Order, as well as provide the requested information, by no later than March 26, 2012. Plaintiff filed

23

a timely response to the order to show cause and provided additional information in support of her

24

IFP application.

25

After reviewing Plaintiff’s application, the court determines that Plaintiff meets the financial

26

requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The court therefore GRANTS the application to proceed in

27

forma pauperis.

28

1

Even when a court grants a plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, the court may

2

dismiss a case sua sponte if the court determines that the party applying for in forma pauperis status

3

has filed a frivolous or malicious action, or if the action “fails to state a claim on which relief may be

4

granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a frivolous claim is one

5

that lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).

6

Dismissal on these grounds is often made sua sponte prior to the issuance of process, so as to spare

7

prospective defendants the inconvenience and expense of answering such complaints. Id. at 324.

8

Where a complaint fails to state that any constitutional or statutory right was violated and fails to

9

assert any basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction, there is no arguable basis in law and the court
may dismiss the complaint under 19 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327 n.6 (“A

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

patently insubstantial complaint may be dismissed, for example, for want of subject-matter

12

jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).”)

13

The Court determines that it does not have jurisdiction over this matter. Although the

14

complaint asserts diversity of citizenship as the basis for the court’s jurisdiction, the complaint

15

alleges that Plaintiff Lisnawati resides in California and Defendant Deutsche Bank National Trust

16

Company (“Deutsche Bank”) is a corporation doing business in California. Compl. ¶¶ 5, 7. The

17

court further takes judicial notice that in an action filed in another district, Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust

18

Co. v. Antonino, 2012 WL 893734, *2 (C.D.Cal., March 15, 2012), Deutsche Bank, appearing as a

19

plaintiff there, represented to the court that it “is a national banking association with its principal

20

offices located in California.” Because Plaintiff and Defendant Deutsche Bank both appear to be

21

citizens of California, and are not of diverse citizenship, the court lacks diversity jurisdiction.

22

The court further determines that there is no federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s

23

complaint. The complaint alleges three causes of action arising under state law: declaratory relief,

24

injunctive relief, and cancellation of instrument/foreclosure/quiet title. No federal question is

25

presented on the face of Plaintiff’s complaint. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392

26

(1987).

27
28

2

1
2

The court therefore dismisses without prejudice Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).1

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: April 16, 2012

7
DONNA M. RYU
United States Magistrate Judge

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
1

24
25
26
27
28

A magistrate judge generally must obtain the consent of the parties to enter dispositive rulings
and judgments in a civil case. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). However, in cases such as this one, where
the plaintiff has consented but not served the defendants, “all parties have consented pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(c)(1),” and a magistrate judge therefore “‘may conduct any or all proceedings in a jury or
nonjury civil matter and order the entry of judgment in the case.’” Gaddy v. McDonald, 2011 WL
5515505, at *1 n.2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2011) (quoting § 636(c)(1)) (citing United States v. Real Property,
135 F.3d 1312, 1317 (9th Cir. 1995)); Third World Media, LLC v. Doe, 2011 WL 4344160, at *3 (N.D.
Cal. Sept. 15, 2011)); see also Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 532 (5th Cir.1995) (holding that
magistrate judge had jurisdiction to dismiss action as frivolous without consent of defendants because
defendants had not yet been served and therefore were not parties).

3