Willis v. Willis
Filing
11
ORDER ADOPTING 7 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DISMISSING THE CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 12/13/2016. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/13/2016)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
SAN JOSE DIVISION
4
5
LILLIYA WILLIS,
Case No. 16-cv-05957-BLF
Plaintiff,
6
v.
7
8
ANDRE WILLIS,
Defendant.
9
[Re: ECF 7]
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND
DISMISSING THE CASE WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
On October 14, 2016, Plaintiff Lilliya Willis, proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled
12
action alleging four causes of action against Defendant Andre Willis: trespass, breach of contract,
13
fraud, and extortion. Compl., ECF 1. Now before the Court is Magistrate Judge Lloyd’s Report
14
and Recommendation (“R&R”) that the case be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
15
On December 12, 2016, Willis timely filed an objection to Judge Lloyd’s R&R. See generally
16
Objection, ECF 10. The Court has reviewed and thoroughly considered Judge Lloyd’s R&R and
17
the arguments in Willis’s objection, and finds the R&R correct, well reasoned, and thorough.
18
Accordingly, and for the reasons discussed below the Court adopts Judge Lloyd’s R&R and
19
DISMISSES the action without prejudice.
20
In her objection, Willis makes several unavailing arguments. First, she contends that she is
21
“not a Plaintiff and [ ] did not file[ ] an administrative court complaint.” ECF 10. Second, Willis
22
states that she is “not bounded to administrative court rules.” Id. Neither of these arguments has
23
merit. She also objects to this case having been assigned to a judge in the San Jose division of this
24
district. Id. However, although a case may be initiated in San Francisco, it may properly be
25
assigned to San Jose based on venue. The assignment of the instant case to San Jose was proper
26
because the action appears to relate to property located in Santa Clara County. See Ex. B to
27
Compl., ECF 1.
28
Finally, Willis asks the Court to seal the suit and not alter it until it “gets before [a] jury.”
1
Id. However, as Judge Lloyd explained, “[f]ederal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They
2
possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by
3
judicial decree.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (internal
4
citations omitted). “A party invoking the federal court’s jurisdiction has the burden of proving the
5
actual existence of subject matter jurisdiction.” Thompson v. McCombe, 99 F.3d 352, 353 (9th
6
Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). “‘A plaintiff suing in a federal court must show in his pleading,
7
affirmatively and distinctly, the existence of whatever is essential to federal jurisdiction, and, if he
8
does not do so, the court, on having the defect called to its attention or on discovering the same,
9
must dismiss the case, unless the defect [can] be corrected by amendment.’” Id. (citing Smith v.
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
McCullough, 270 U.S. 456, 459 (1926)).
To invoke diversity jurisdiction in an action involving U.S. citizens, the complaint must
12
allege that the matter in controversy is between citizens of different states and the amount in
13
controversy must exceed $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §1332(a)(1). The complaint contains no facts
14
suggesting that there is diversity jurisdiction in this case. In fact, the underlying issue appears to
15
be related to property located in Santa Clara County, and as such, it appears that both parties are
16
domiciled in California. See Ex. B to Compl. Moreover, this case does not involve a federal
17
question—claims for trespass, breach of contract, fraud, and extortion are all resolved under state
18
law. Willis does not contest any of this in her objection. Because the defect cannot be corrected
19
by amendment, the above-titled action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
21
22
23
24
Dated: December 13, 2016
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
25
26
27
28
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?