Campbell v. Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc.

Filing 3

ORDER DISMISSING CASE Without Prejudice: If plaintiff intends to file an amended complaint, he should set forth why venue in this district is appropriate. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 3/2/2009. (mjj) (jrl).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 GREGORY CAMPBELL, 12 13 v. 14 TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, USA, INC., 15 16 17 Defendant. Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 09cv375 L (BLM) ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On February 25, 2009, plaintiff filed the above-captioned case. The complaint sets forth

18 that the Court has original jurisdiction over this case "because the action alleges claims pursuant 19 to 15 U.S.C. § 2310." (Complaint at 1.) 20 The federal court is one of limited jurisdiction. See Gould v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y.,

21 790 F.2d 769, 774 (9th Cir. 1986). It possesses only that power authorized by the Constitution 22 or a statute. See Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986). Federal 23 courts can adjudicate only those cases that arise under the United States Constitution, treaties, 24 federal statutes, administrative regulations or federal common law, or are based upon diversity of 25 citizenship. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S . 375 (1994). "`Without jurisdiction 26 the court cannot proceed at all in any cause. Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it 27 ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and 28 dismissing the case.'" Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998)
09cv375

1 (quoting Ex Parte McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506, 514 (1868)). It is the plaintiff's burden to 2 establish the court's subject matter jurisdiction. Thompson v. McCombe, 99 F.3d 352, 353 (9th 3 Cir. 1996). 4 As noted above, plaintiff references 15 U.S.C. § 2310,1 in his assertion of subject matter

5 jurisdiction based on a federal question but no violation of section 2310 or any other federal 6 statute is alleged in the body of the complaint against the defendant. Rather, plaintiff 7 exclusively alleges various state law causes of action. In the absence of any allegations of 8 violation of a federal statute by defendant, plaintiff has not established subject matter 9 jurisdiction. The Complaint must be dismissed without prejudice. 10 Although not a jurisdictional prerequisite, there is no assertion in the complaint that venue

11 is proper in this district. If plaintiff intends to file an amended complaint, he should set forth 12 why venue in this district is appropriate. 13 On its face, plaintiff's complaint does not provide a basis for the exercise of subject

14 matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT 15 PREJUDICE. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED.

17 DATED: March 2, 2009 18 19 20 21 COPY TO: 22 HON. LEO S. PAPAS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL 25 26 27 28
1

M. James Lorenz United States District Court Judge

15 U.S.C. § 2310 is known as the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
2
09cv375