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)

Download PDF
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?