Evans v. State of California et al

Filing 25

ORDER granting Defendants Old Republic Default Management Services and Zieve, Brodnax & Steele, LLP's 6 Motion to Dismiss. Court dismisses without prejudice Plaintiff's Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because Court has dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint, Court terminates as moot 8 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, 15 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, 18 Motion for Reconsideration, 24 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 8/21/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (jah)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13

ANNA MARIE EVANS,
Plaintiff,

14
15
16
17

Case No. 17-cv-00531-BAS-BGS
ORDER:
(1) GRANTING DEFENDANTS
OLD REPUBLIC DEFAULT
MANAGEMENT SERVICES AND
ZIEVE, BRODNAX & STEELE,
LLP’S MOTION TO DISMISS
(ECF No. 6); AND

v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Defendants.

18

(2) TERMINATING AS MOOT
REMAINING PENDING
MOTIONS (ECF Nos. 8, 15, 18, 24)

19
20
21

Plaintiff Anna Marie Evans commenced this action against numerous

22

Defendants allegedly involved in a foreclosure sale of her property. Presently before

23

the Court is Defendants Old Republic Default Management Services, a Division of

24

Old Republic National Title Insurance Co., and Zieve, Brodnax & Steele, LLP

25

(“Moving Defendants”)’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s action for lack of subject

26

matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.

27

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to Moving Defendants’ motion. The Court

28

nevertheless addresses the merits of the motion and does not deem Plaintiff’s failure
–1–

17cv0531

1

to respond as consent to the granting of the motion. See Civ. L.R. 7.l(f)(3)(c). The

2

Court also finds this motion suitable for decision on the papers submitted and

3

without oral argument. See id. 7.1(d)(1). For the following reasons, the Court

4

concludes it lacks subject matter jurisdiction and therefore GRANTS Moving

5

Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the Court also TERMINATES AS

6

MOOT the remaining motions pending in this action.

7
8

I.

LEGAL STANDARD

9

Under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may move to

10

dismiss an action based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P.

11

12(b)(1). “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian

12

Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “They possess only that power

13

authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial

14

decree.” Id. (citations omitted). “It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this

15

limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party

16

asserting jurisdiction.” Id. (citations omitted). Thus, “[w]hen subject matter

17

jurisdiction is challenged under Federal Rule of Procedure 12(b)(1), the plaintiff has

18

the burden of proving jurisdiction in order to survive the motion.” Kingman Reef

19

Atoll Invs., L.L.C. v. United States, 541 F.3d 1189, 1197 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Tosco

20

Corp. v. Comtys. for a Better Env’t, 236 F.3d 495, 499 (9th Cir. 2001)).

21
22

II.

ANALYSIS

23

Moving Defendants argue the Court lacks diversity or federal question

24

jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s suit. (Mot. 2:12–4:28.) The Court will address each

25

possible basis for jurisdiction.

26

//

27

//

28

//
–2–

17cv0531

1

A.

Diversity Jurisdiction

2

To invoke a court’s diversity jurisdiction, the amount in controversy must

3

exceed $75,000 and there must be complete diversity of citizenship between the

4

parties. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); see also, e.g., Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68

5

(1996). Complete diversity means the citizenship of each plaintiff must be diverse

6

from the citizenship of each defendant. E.g., Lewis, 519 U.S. at 68. Moreover, the

7

party invoking diversity jurisdiction has the burden to plead and prove that these

8

requirements are satisfied. See, e.g., Bautista v. Pan Am. World Airlines, Inc., 828

9

F.2d 546, 552 (9th Cir. 1987).

10

Under the diversity statute, “a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of

11

every State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or

12

foreign state where it has its principal place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).

13

Meaning, a corporation incorporated in one state with its principal place of business

14

in another state is a citizen of both states. Id. A corporation’s principal place of

15

business is where it has its nerve center, which is typically its headquarters. See Hertz

16

Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 81 (2010). If a company has dual citizenship, it can sue

17

or be sued in diversity actions only if no opposing party is a citizen of either state.

18

See Bank of Cal. Nat. Ass’n v. Twin Harbors Lumber Co., 465 F.2d 489, 492 (9th

19

Cir. 1972) (holding complaint needed to allege for the defendant corporation both (i)

20

the place of incorporation and (ii) the principal place of business to preclude the

21

possibility that the corporation was a citizen of the same state as the plaintiff).

22

In addition, the citizenship of a limited liability company is determined by the

23

citizenship of all of its members. Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437

24

F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). “[A]n LLC is a citizen of every state of which its

25

owners/members are citizens.” Id. Further, “a partnership is a citizen of all states of

26

which its partners are citizens.” Id. Similarly, a limited partnership is deemed to be a

27

citizen of every state of which any of its general or limited partners is a citizen. Id.;

28

see also Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 195–96 (1990) (holding
–3–

17cv0531

1

citizenship of limited partners must be taken into account to determine diversity of

2

citizenship).

3

Moving Defendants argue diversity jurisdiction is lacking because Plaintiff

4

does not demonstrate complete diversity of citizenship. (Mot. 4:19–20.) The Court

5

agrees. It is unclear if Plaintiff is seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction. However,

6

even if she is, Plaintiff does not do so successfully. Her pleading does not contain

7

allegations regarding each Defendant’s citizenship. (See Compl. ¶¶ 1–14.) Thus, she

8

does not demonstrate that her citizenship is diverse from the citizenship of each

9

Defendant. See, e.g., Lewis, 519 U.S. at 68. To establish complete citizenship,

10

Plaintiff must include in her Complaint an allegation regarding not only her

11

citizenship, which is presumably California given her address, but also the

12

citizenship of each Defendant. For those Defendants that are corporations, Plaintiff

13

must also allege the (i) place of incorporation and (ii) principal place of business for

14

each corporation. Further, for those Defendants that are limited liability companies

15

or limited partnerships, Plaintiff must allege the place of citizenship of each member

16

of the limited liability company or partner of the limited partnership. She has not

17

done so.

18

Accordingly, because Plaintiff has not satisfied her burden to plead that the

19

requirements for diversity jurisdiction are satisfied, the Court concludes it lacks

20

diversity jurisdiction.

21
22

B.

Federal Question Jurisdiction

23

A district court derives its federal question jurisdiction from 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

24

Section 1331 provides that “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil

25

actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” “[T]he

26

presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded

27

complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal

28

question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Rivet
–4–

17cv0531

1

v. Regions Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998) (quoting Caterpillar Inc. v.

2

Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987)). A federal “defense is not part of a plaintiff’s

3

properly pleaded statement of his or her claim.” Id. (citing Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.

4

v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, (1987)). Notwithstanding the well-pleaded complaint rule,

5

federal question jurisdiction may also exist “if a state-law claim ‘necessarily raise[s]

6

a stated federal issue, actually disputed and substantial, which a federal forum may

7

entertain without disturbing any congressionally-approved balance of federal and

8

state judicial responsibilities.’” Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome,

9

Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Grable & Sons Metal Prod., Inc.

10

v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 314 (2005)). “Such a federal issue must be ‘a

11

substantial one, indicating a serious federal interest in claiming the advantages

12

thought to be inherent in a federal forum.’” Id. at 1086–87 (quoting Grable & Sons,

13

545 U.S. at 313).

14

Moving Defendants contend federal question jurisdiction is lacking because

15

Plaintiff does not allege a cause of action arising under federal law. (Mot. 3:19–20.)

16

The Court concurs. There is no federal question on the face of Plaintiff’s pleading.

17

Plaintiff includes no discussion of subject matter jurisdiction in her Complaint.

18

Further, Plaintiff’s claims are labelled “Trespass” or “trespass on the Case.” (Compl.

19

¶¶ 1–40.) These are common law theories, not federal claims. See generally Inter-

20

Ins. Exch. of Auto. Club of S. Cal. v. Lopez, 238 Cal. App. 2d 441, 445–46 (1965)

21

(distinguishing between trespass and trespass on the case). In addition, having

22

reviewed Plaintiff’s allegations, the Court broadly construes them as attempting to

23

raise state law foreclosure claims. These claims do not present a federal issue and

24

consequently do not provide the Court with federal question jurisdiction.

25

Accordingly, because Plaintiff’s Complaint does not establish the Court has

26

either diversity or federal question jurisdiction over this case, her Complaint is

27

subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1). See, e.g., Nordblad v. Deutsche Bank Nat.

28

Tr. Co., No. CV 13-07542 DDP VBKX, 2013 WL 6859273, at *1–*2 (C.D. Cal.
–5–

17cv0531

1

Dec. 30, 2013) (dismissing action arising out of foreclosure for lack of subject matter

2

jurisdiction), aff’d, 667 Fed. App’x 239. In addition, because the Court lacks subject

3

matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), it does not reach Moving Defendants’

4

arguments under Rule 12(b)(6) based on a failure to state a claim.

5
6

III.

CONCLUSION

7

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Moving Defendants’ motion

8

to dismiss (ECF No. 6). The Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE

9

Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Further, because the

10

Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Court TERMINATES AS MOOT

11

the remaining motions that are pending in this case (ECF Nos. 8, 15, 18, 24).

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

DATED: August 21, 2017

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
–6–

17cv0531