Sikking et al v. Griswold et al

Filing 22

ORDER DISMISSING CASE for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. The Court dismisses this case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court is instructed to close this case. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 8/28/2018.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rmc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

JEFF SIKKING; and BARBARA
SIKKING,

14
15

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR
LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION

Plaintiff,

12
13

Case No.: 18cv634-MMA (JMA)

v.
SAN DIEGO CITY ATTORNEY'S and
CODE ENFORCEMENT,
Defendants.

16
17

On July 31, 2018, the Court ordered Plaintiffs Jeff Sikking and Barbara Sikking

18

(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) to show cause why their Complaint should not be dismissed

19

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on or before August 17, 2018. Doc. No. 21 at 2.

20

To date, Plaintiffs have not filed a response. See Docket.

21

Federal district courts are “courts of limited jurisdiction,” possessing “only that

22

power authorized by Constitution and statute.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs.,

23

Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 552 (2005) (quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511

24

U.S. 375, 377 (1994)). Mootness “is a question of subject matter jurisdiction.” CW

25

Gov’t Travel, Inc. v. United States, 46 Fed. Cl. 554, 556 (2000). “Federal courts have no

26

jurisdiction to hear a case that is moot, that is, where no actual or live controversy exists.

27

If there is no longer a possibility that an appellant can obtain relief for his claim, that

28

claim is moot and must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.” Foster v. Carson, 347 F.3d
1
18cv634-MMA (JMA)

1

742, 745 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). “A case is moot when the issues presented

2

are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” City

3

of Erie v. Pap’s A.M., 529 U.S. 277, 287 (2000) (citations omitted). The central issue in

4

any mootness challenge is whether changes in the circumstances existing when the action

5

was filed have forestalled any meaningful relief. See West v. Sec’y of Dept. of Transp.,

6

206 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[T]he question is not whether the precise relief

7

sought at the time the application for an injunction was filed is still available. The

8

question is whether there can be any effective relief.”).

9

Plaintiffs seek to enjoin a state court-appointed receiver from selling their property

10

located at 4814 Auburn Street, San Diego, CA. See Doc. No. 1. Plaintiffs’ attached a

11

letter to their Complaint, dated March 23, 2018, from the receiver, which explains that

12

the state court approved the sale of the property and that the close of escrow is anticipated

13

“in the next week.” Id. at 9. Additionally, the San Diego County Recorder's website

14

indicates that a deed of trust was recorded on May 1, 2018 where the Grantor was

15

Defendant and Receiver, Richardson Griswold, and the Grantee was 4Nothing LLC.

16

Assessor/Recorder/County Clerk,

17

https://arcc-acclaim.sdcounty.ca.gov/search/SearchTypeParcel (last visited June 15,

18

2018). Moreover, the Court granted as unopposed Defendant Griswold’s motion to

19

dismiss and denied Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction to stop the Receiver

20

from selling the property. Doc. No. 20. As this injunctive relief is the only relief sought

21

by Plaintiffs in the Complaint, the Court finds that the Complaint is now moot.

22
23
24
25

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this case without prejudice for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court is instructed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 28, 2018

26
27
28
2
18cv634-MMA (JMA)