Luna et al v. Greenlight Financial Services et al

Filing 3

ORDER Denying 2 Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Sua Sponte Dismissing Case for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Plaintiff is Granted forty-five (45) days to file an amended complaint. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 5/15/2013. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(srm)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAUL LUNA; AND NATALIA LUNA, 12 vs. CASE NO. 13cv623-GPC(JMA) Plaintiffs, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 GREENLIGHT FINANCIAL SERVICES, M.E.R.S., NDEX WEST, LLC/AMERICAS SERVICING; BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, UNIDENTIFIED JOHN AND JANE DOES, Defendants. 20 21 22 23 24 27 28 [Dkt. No. 2.] Plaintiffs Raul Luna and Natalia Luna, proceeding pro se, commenced this action against Defendants regarding the wrongful foreclosure of their home. Plaintiffs concurrently filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to proceed IFP, but sua sponte DISMISSES their suit for lack of jurisdiction. 25 26 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND SUA SPONTE DISMISSING CASE FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION Discussion I. Motion to Proceed IFP Plaintiffs move to proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Section 1915(a) allows a court to authorize a lawsuit's commencement without payment of the filing fee -1- [13cv623-GPC(JMA)] 1 if the plaintiff submits an affidavit demonstrating his or her inability to pay the filing 2 fee. Such affidavit must include a complete statement of the plaintiff's assets. Here, 3 Plaintiffs submit a declaration of their assets. Based on the answers, it appears that 4 they are able to pay the filing fee. One of the plaintiffs is currently employed and 5 makes $3000 per month, owns a car and has no debt. However, Plaintiffs do have 6 monthly payments to support their family. Plaintiffs also provide conflicting 7 information. While they state that they do not own any real estate, they state that they 8 have a $1800 mortgage payment. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs fail 9 to meet the requirements to proceed IFP and DENIES their request to proceed IFP. 10 II. Sua Sponte Dismissal for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction 11 It is well-established that a federal court cannot reach the merits of any dispute 12 until it confirms that it retains subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the issues 13 presented. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environ., 523 U.S. 83, 94-95 (1998). 14 Accordingly, federal courts are under a continuing duty to confirm their jurisdictional 15 power and are “obliged to inquire sua sponte whenever a doubt arises as to [its] 16 existence . . . .” Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 278 17 (1977) (citations omitted). 18 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Unlike state courts, they have 19 no “inherent” or “general” subject matter jurisdiction. They can adjudicate only those 20 cases which the Constitution and Congress authorize them to adjudicate, i.e. those 21 involving diversity of citizenship, a federal question, or to which the United States is 22 a party. See Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545 (1989). Federal courts are 23 presumptively without jurisdiction over civil actions and the burden of establishing the 24 contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life 25 Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). 26 Here, Plaintiffs allege that their “deed of trust violates due process as a contract 27 of adhesion;” “deed of trust violates due process as a cognovit note”; and they seek 28 relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act. In the complaint, Plaintiffs cite the due -2- [13cv623-GPC(JMA)] 1 process provision in the California Constitution. Based on the allegations in the 2 complaint, it is not clear whether Plaintiff is asserting a violation under federal or state 3 law. As a result, these allegations do not give rise to a federal question or diversity 4 jurisdiction. Moreover, the United States is not a party to this case. Plaintiffs do not 5 state a sufficient basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction over his case. Accordingly 6 the Court sua sponte DISMISSES the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 7 8 Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to proceed 9 IFP and sua sponte DISMISSES the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 10 The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs 45 days from the date this Order is stamped "Filed" to 11 file an amended complaint that addresses the deficiencies of pleading set forth above. 12 Plaintiffs’ amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to the 13 superseded pleading. Defendants not named and all claims not re-alleged in the 14 amended complaint will be deemed to have been waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 15 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 DATED: May 15, 2013 19 20 HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3- [13cv623-GPC(JMA)]

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?