Razavi v. Coti et al

Filing 4

Order that Case be Reassigned to a District Judge, Order Granting Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Report and Recommendation signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 8/2/2017. Objections due by 8/16/2017. (hrllc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/2/2017)

E-filed 8/2/2017

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MELINA RAZAVI,
Plaintiff,

8

ORDER THAT CASE BE REASSIGNED
TO A DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10

v.

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION
TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

Case No.17-cv-04341-HRL

CARLOS COTI, et al.,
Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 2

Pro se plaintiff Melina Razavi (“Razavi”) sues Defendants Carlos Coti, Geico Insurance,

15

Progressive Insurance, Tony Soria, John Sgalio, and Stephanie Church for fraud, breach of

16

contract, and other claims related to an automobile accident. Dkt. No. 1. Razavi also seeks leave

17

to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).

18

For the reasons explained below, the court grants the IFP application. As no party has yet

19

consented to or declined the undersigned’s jurisdiction, the court orders that this case be

20

reassigned to a district judge. The undersigned also recommends that the newly assigned district

21

judge dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

22

A court may authorize the commencement of a civil action in forma pauperis (“IFP”) if the

23

court is satisfied that the applicant cannot pay the requisite filing fees. 28 U.S.C § 1915(a)(1). In

24

evaluating such an application, the court should “grant[] or deny[] IFP status based on the

25

plaintiff’s financial resources alone and then independently determine[] whether to dismiss the

26

complaint on the grounds that it is frivolous.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1226-27 n.5

27

(9th Cir. 1984). A court may dismiss a case filed without the payment of the filing fee whenever it

28

determines that the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief

1

may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such

2

relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). Additionally, “federal courts have an independent

3

obligation to ensure that they do not exceed the scope of their jurisdiction.” Henderson ex rel.

4

Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 434 (2011). Razavi qualifies financially for IFP status, and

5

her IFP application therefore is granted. Even so, she has not sufficiently alleged the existence of

6

federal subject-matter jurisdiction over this matter.

7

The two principal grounds for federal jurisdiction include (1) federal question jurisdiction
and (2) diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff does not allege a violation of any federal right or of any

9

specific federal statute or Constitutional provision, and so the only grounds for federal jurisdiction

10

in this case can be diversity jurisdiction. To properly allege jurisdiction premised on diversity of

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

citizenship, the plaintiff must allege damages in excess of $75,000 and complete diversity of

12

citizenship between the parties—that is, each defendant must be a citizen of a different state from

13

each plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332; Moss v. Infinity Ins. Co., No. 15-cv-03456-JSC, 2015 WL

14

5360294 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2015). The amount in controversy is generally determined from the

15

face of the pleadings. Crum v. Circus Circus Enters., 231 F.3d 1129, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000).

16

Razavi seeks damages for the uncompensated damage to her car and for her own injuries

17

sustained during the accident and resulting from Defendants’ subsequent conduct. Beyond the

18

conclusory statement that “this case is worth over $75,000,” however, Razavi does not assign any

19

specific monetary amounts or dollar values to any of her injuries. Razavi’s conclusory statement

20

that the case exceeds $75,000 is insufficient. As a result of the lack of detail in her other

21

allegations, the court is unable to draw any conclusions about the amount in controversy. As it is

22

not apparent that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, the complaint fails to adequately

23

allege diversity jurisdiction.

24

The complaint also fails to adequately allege complete diversity of citizenship between the

25

parties. Plaintiffs must generally affirmatively allege the actual citizenship of the relevant parties.

26

Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). For purposes of diversity of

27

citizenship, an individual is a citizen of his or her state of domicile (i.e., where the person has

28

established a home and intends to remain). Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir. 1986). A
2

1

corporation is a citizen of its state of incorporation and the state in which its principal place of

2

business is located. 28 U.S.C. 1332(c). Here, Razavi alleges solely that “defendants do business

3

out of state and have out of state locations.” Dkt. No. 1. She does not allege the specific

4

citizenship of any of the Defendants, failing to state the places of domicile for the individual

5

Defendants and the places of incorporation and principal places of business for the entity

6

Defendants.
CONCLUSION

7

The undersigned grants Razavi’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and orders that

9

this case be reassigned to a district judge. Razavi has failed to allege diversity of citizenship, and

10

so the undersigned recommends that the court dismiss her complaint. Because it is possible that

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

diversity jurisdiction may exist in this matter, the undersigned recommends that Razavi be granted

12

leave to file an amended complaint.

13
14
15
16

Any party may serve and file objections to this Report and Recommendation within
fourteen days after being served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 8/2/2017

17
18
HOWARD R. LLOYD
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3