Casella v. Lollar et al

Filing 9

ORDER That Case Be Reassigned to a District Judge; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 , 7 Dismissal for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Objections due by 3/8/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 2/19/2013. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/19/2013)

1
2

*E-FILED: February 19, 2013*

3
4
5
6
NOT FOR CITATION

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

7

12
13
14
15

No. C12-06310 HRL

ANDREA CASELLA,

ORDER THAT CASE BE REASSIGNED
TO A DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff,
v.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RE
DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF SUBJECT
MATTER JURISDICTION

ROGER AND NANCY LOLLAR,
Defendants.
/

16
17

Plaintiff Andrea Casella sues for alleged breach of a written contract, claiming that

18

defendants owe $34,000. The complaint was filed on December 12, 2012 and was randomly

19

assigned to the undersigned magistrate judge for all purposes, including trial. Thus far, there

20

has been no appearance by any defendant. Casella has filed a “Motion for Summary Judgment”

21

(Dkt. No. 7), asserting that she is entitled to judgment on the ground that defendants have not

22

answered her complaint. For the reasons stated below, the undersigned recommends that the

23

complaint be dismissed for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction and that the motion for

24

summary judgment be denied as moot.

25

Federal courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions “arising under the

26

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A claim “arises under”

27

federal law if, based on the “well-pleaded complaint rule,” the plaintiff alleges a federal claim

28

for relief. Vaden v. Discovery Bank, 129 S. Ct. 1262, 1272 (2009). “If the court determines at

1

any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the complaint.” FED. R.

2

CIV. P. 12(h)(3). Here, plaintiff’s complaint presents claims arising only under state law. There

3

is no suggestion in the allegations that there is any basis for a federal claim for relief.

4

Nor is there any basis for diversity jurisdiction. Federal district courts have jurisdiction

5

over civil actions in which the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000

6

(exclusive of interest and costs) and is between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. §1332.

7

Based on the allegations of Casella’s complaint, it appears that the amount-in-controversy

8

requirement is not met. And, in any event, the complaint indicates that plaintiff and defendants

9

are California citizens.
Because the parties have yet to consent to the undersigned’s jurisdiction, this court

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to reassign this case to a District Judge. The undersigned

12

further RECOMMENDS that the newly assigned judge dismiss the complaint for lack of subject

13

matter jurisdiction. The dismissal should be without prejudice to plaintiff to seek relief in the

14

proper court. Plaintiff’s pending “Motion for Summary Judgment” should be denied as moot.

15
16
17
18

Any party may file objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen days
after being served. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 19, 2013

19
HOWARD R. LLOYD
20

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

1

5:13-cv-06310-HRL Notice sent by U.S. Mail to:

2

Andrea Casella
5460 B Lincoln Way
Felton, CA 95018

3
4

Pro Se Plaintiff

5
6
7
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
24
25
26
27
28
3