Gutierrez v. United States Department of Agriculture et al

Filing 15

ORDER Dismissing Action for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Because the USDA is no longer a Defendant, the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. The only remaining Defendants are Marco J. Rodriguez, Plaintiffs f ormer attorney, and Gabriel Doe, Mr. Rodriguez assistant. Plaintiff alleges state law claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation and attorney malpractice against them. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims. Accordingly, this action is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 6/30/2009. (mjj) (av1).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ANTONIO GUTIERREZ, 12 13 v. 14 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 09cv125-L(BLM) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff filed this action to quiet title to his property and declare right to possession. He

18 also asserted claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unfair business practices, 19 constructive trust and attorney malpractice under California law. The court initially had subject 20 matter jurisdiction over the action because United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA") 21 was a named Defendant who held a deed of trust on Plaintiff's property. On March 31, 2009 22 Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the USDA. He subsequently dismissed several additional 23 Defendants. The only Defendants remaining in the case are Marco J. Rodriguez and Gabriel 24 Doe. 25 The federal court is one of limited jurisdiction. See Gould v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y.,

26 790 F.2d 769, 774 (9th Cir. 1986). It possesses only the power authorized by the Constitution or 27 a statute. See Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986). It is 28 constitutionally required to raise issues related to federal subject matter jurisdiction and may do

1 so sua sponte. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 93-94 (1998); see Indus. 2 Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990). 3 Because the USDA is no longer a Defendant, the court has dismissed all claims over

4 which it has original jurisdiction. The only remaining Defendants are Marco J. Rodriguez, 5 Plaintiff's former attorney, and Gabriel Doe, Mr. Rodriguez' assistant. Plaintiff alleges state law 6 claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation and attorney malpractice against them. Pursuant to 7 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims. 8 Accordingly, this action is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of

9 subject matter jurisdiction. 10 11 12 DATED: June 30, 2009 13 14 15 COPY TO: M. James Lorenz United States District Court Judge IT IS SO ORDERED.

HON. BARBARA LYNN MAJOR 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28