Christopher v. Reaching Fourth Ministries et al
Filing
14
ORDER DISMISSING Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Court dismisses this action without prejudice. If Plaintiff wishes to file an amended complaint, he must do so by 11/24/2017. If Plaintiff fails to fil e the amended complaint within the specific time, Court will direct the Clerk to close the case. Court terminates as moot Defendants' 10 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, and Plaintiff's 13 Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Defendants and Motion for U.S. Marshals to Effect Service. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 10/31/2017. (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
CARREA CHRISTOPHER,
13
Case No. 17-cv-00726-BAS-BLM
Plaintiff,
14
ORDER DISMISSING FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION
v.
15
16
REACHING FOURTH
MINISTRIES,
et al.,
17
18
Defendants.
Plaintiff Carrea Christopher, proceeding in forma pauperis (“IFP”), has filed a
19
20
First Amendment Complaint (“FAC”).
21
§1915(e), this Court has conducted a mandatory screening of the FAC and
22
determined that dismissal is warranted for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
23
I.
24
(ECF No. 6.)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed the original complaint on April 10, 2017, alleging claims of
25
negligence, fraud, and malpractice against multiple defendants.
26
Plaintiff also alleged claims of “intentional drained natural resources” and
27
“destruction and the drainage of land” located in Cherokee County, Texas. (Id.)
28
Plaintiff simultaneously filed a motion to proceed IFP, which this Court granted.
–1–
(ECF No. 1.)
17cv726
1
(ECF Nos. 2, 3.) After granting Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP, the Court
2
conducted a mandatory screening of the Complaint, as required by 28 U.S.C. §1915.
3
(ECF No. 3.) The Court determined that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction
4
over the case because the Plaintiff failed to allege citizenship of the individual and
5
corporate defendants for the purposes of invoking diversity jurisdiction. (Id. at 4.)
6
The Court dismissed the Complaint without prejudice.
7
Plaintiff subsequently filed the FAC on April 28, 2017. (ECF No. 6) He now
8
alleges that he is a resident of both California and Washington. (Id. at 2.) He alleges
9
that the Defendants’ principal place of business and incorporation as well as
10
residence is Texas. (Id.) Plaintiff also alleges that two of the Defendants named in
11
the FAC, Ava Taji and Gillian Dandekar, are California real estate brokers. (Id. at
12
28−31.) The Court did not conduct a mandatory screening of the FAC after its filing.
13
The Court does so now.
14
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
A complaint filed by any litigant proceeding IFP is subject to mandatory
15
16
screening by the court in which the complaint is brought.
See 28 U.S.C.
17
§1915(e)(2)(B); see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he
18
provisions of 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”).
19
§1915(e)(2), the court must dismiss a case if the court determines that the action is
20
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief against persons
21
immune from suit. In addition—and separate from the pre-screening requirements
22
of § 1915(e)—“federal courts have a duty to raise and decide issues of subject matter
23
jurisdiction sua sponte, if at any time it appears that subject matter jurisdiction may
24
be lacking.” Bank Julius Baer & Co. Ltd v. Wikileaks, 535 F. Supp. 2d 980, 984
25
(N.D. Cal. 2008) (citations omitted). “Where a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction,
26
it must dismiss the complaint in its entirety.” Adames v. Taju, 80 F. Supp. 3d 465,
27
467 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) (citing Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006)).
28
III.
Under
DISCUSSION
–2–
17cv726
1
The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to correct the pleading deficiency that
2
warranted dismissal of the original complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
3
To invoke diversity jurisdiction, there must be complete diversity of citizenship
4
between the parties and the amount of controversy must exceed $75,000. See
5
Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267 (1806); 28 U.S.C. §1332(a). Complete
6
diversity exists when “the citizenship of each plaintiff is diverse from the citizenship
7
of each defendant.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996).
8
Plaintiff alleges that he is a resident of both California and Washington. (ECF
9
No. 6 at 2.) For the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a natural person’s citizenship
10
is determined by the state of domicile, not the state of residence. Kanter v. Warner-
11
Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). A person’s domicile is his
12
permanent home, where he resides with the intention to remain or to which he intends
13
to return. Id. Plaintiff’s new allegations of residence in two states are insufficient to
14
show his state citizenship. Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff is in fact domiciled in
15
the state of California (which appears to be the case), complete diversity will not exist
16
in this case as long as any named Defendant is also a citizen of California. Although
17
Plaintiff alleges that “the Defendants principal place of business and incorporation as
18
well as residence is Texas,” (ECF No. 6 at 2), Plaintiff has also named two
19
Defendants, Ava Taji and Gillian Dandekar, who are alleged to be California real
20
estate brokers. (Id. at 28−31.) The Court is not satisfied that there is the requisite
21
diversity in this case to support its subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims.
22
Even if the Plaintiff corrects the deficiencies in the FAC, the Court observes
23
that venue in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California
24
is likely improper. “A civil action may be brought in: (1) a judicial district in which
25
any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district
26
is located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions
27
giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the
28
subject of the action is situated; or (3) if there is no district in which any action may
–3–
17cv726
1
otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any
2
defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.”
3
28 U.S.C. §1391(b). Section 1391(b)(1) is inapplicable based on the allegations in
4
the FAC because all the Defendants do not reside in the same state.
5
1391(b)(2), however, would indicate that venue is likely proper in a judicial district
6
in Texas because a substantial part of the events or omissions alleged in the FAC
7
occurred in that state. Moreover, the property that is the subject of the alleged fraud
8
and which Plaintiff alleges was illegally drained is situated in Cherokee County,
9
Texas. (ECF No. 6 at 25.) The Court advises the Plaintiff that any amended
10
complaint filed with this Court may be subject to dismissal for lack of proper venue.
11
IV.
Section
CONCLUSION & ORDER
12
For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY DISMISSES this action
13
without prejudice. If the Plaintiff wishes to file an amended complaint, he must do
14
so no later than November 24, 2017. The Court advises the Plaintiff that if he
15
chooses to file a second amended complaint, it will be subject to another mandatory
16
screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915. If the Plaintiff fails to file an amended
17
complaint within the specific time, the Court will direct the Clerk to close the case.
18
The Court TERMINATES AS MOOT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for
19
Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (ECF No. 10), and Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting an
20
Extension of Time to Serve Defendants and Motion for Service by the United States
21
Marshal (ECF No. 13).
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 31, 2017
24
25
26
27
28
–4–
17cv726
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?