Razavi v. Coti et al
Filing
7
ORDER ADOPTING 4 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Amended Pleading due by 9/21/2017. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 8/22/2017. (blflc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/22/2017)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
SAN JOSE DIVISION
4
5
MELINA RAZAVI,
Plaintiff,
6
7
8
9
Case No. 17-cv-04341-BLF
v.
CARLOS COTI, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION; AND
DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND
[Re: ECF 4]
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
This action arises from a 2015 automobile accident between Plaintiff Melina Razavi and
12
Defendant Carlos Coti. Compl., ECF 1. Razavi, proceeding pro se, filed the present complaint on
13
July 31, 2017, alleging that although Coti admitted at the scene that the accident was his fault, he
14
later lied and said that the accident was her fault. Id. at 1. Both Coti’s insurance company,
15
Progressive, and Razavi’s own insurance company, Geico, have taken the position that Razavi was
16
at fault rather than Coti. Id. at 2. Razavi sues Coti, Progressive, and Geico, as well as individual
17
employees of Progressive and Geico. Her complaint is drafted in letter format, and does not
18
contain subheadings identifying her claims. However, it appears from the text of the complaint
19
that Razavi asserts state law claims for fraud and breach of contract. Razavi alleges federal
20
jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship, “because defendants do business out of state and
21
have out of state locations, and this case is worth over $75,000.” Id. at 2.
22
The case initially was assigned to Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd. On August 2, 2017,
23
Judge Lloyd issued a combined order which granted Razavi leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
24
directed that the action be reassigned to a district judge, and included a Report and
25
Recommendation (“R&R”) suggesting that the complaint be dismissed with leave to amend.
26
R&R, ECF 4. The docket reflects that the R&R was served on Razavi by mail on August 2, 2017.
27
Razavi thus was required to file any objections to the R&R on or before August 21, 2017. See
28
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) (deadline for objection is fourteen days after service of report and
1
recommendation); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) (adding three days when a party must act within a specified
2
time after being served with a document by mail). Razavi has not filed an objection.
3
The Court finds the R&R to be correct, well-reasoned and thorough. In particular, the
4
Court agrees with Judge Lloyd’s conclusion that the complaint does not establish diversity of
5
citizenship because it does not allege the citizenship of each party and does not set forth facts
6
showing damages in excess of $75,000. See Mellor v. W. Trop Storage, LLC, 672 F. App’x 708,
7
709 (9th Cir. 2016) (“The district court properly dismissed Mellor’s action for lack of subject
8
matter jurisdiction because Mellor failed to allege facts sufficient to show that the amount in
9
controversy was satisfied.”); Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001)
(“Absent unusual circumstances, a party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction should be able to
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
allege affirmatively the actual citizenship of the relevant parties.”). Because it is not clear that
12
Razavi could not establish diversity of citizenship if given an opportunity to do so, the Court will
13
grant leave to amend to cure the deficiencies identified above and in Judge Lloyd’s R&R. The
14
Court notes that Razavi’s complaint states that she is disabled, expects to undergo surgery, and
15
may find herself unable to litigate the case in the near future. Compl. at 3, ECF 1. For that
16
reason, the Court will grant Razavi thirty days to amend her pleading rather than the fourteen days
17
that she otherwise would be afforded.
18
Accordingly, the Court:
19
(1)
ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety;
20
(2)
DISMISSES the complaint WITH LEAVE TO AMEND;
21
(3)
ORDERS that any amended complaint be filed on or before September 21, 2017;
and
22
23
(4)
ADVISES that the U.S. Marshal will not be directed to serve process on
24
Defendants unless and until Razavi files a viable complaint establishing the
25
existence of federal subject matter jurisdiction.
26
27
28
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 22, 2017
_____________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
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?