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)

Download PDF
1 2 *E-FILED: February 19, 2013* 3 4 5 6 NOT FOR CITATION 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 For the Northern District of California United States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

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?