Mosier v. Quality Loan Service Corporation et al

Filing 4

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. The complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failing to invoke the Court's jurisdiction. No later than the close of business on 11/4/2019, Mosier may file an amended complaint. Signed by Chief Judge Larry Alan Burns on 10/11/2019. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jdt)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID MOSIER Case No.: 19cv1956-LAB (LL) Plaintiff, 12 13 v. 14 ORDER OF DISMISSAL QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORP., et al. 15 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff David Mosier, who is representing himself, filed his complaint asking 19 for damages in connection with a trustee’s sale, an order rescinding a recorded 20 deed of trust and trustee’s deed upon sale and quieting title, and correcting any 21 resulting any negative credit reporting. 22 The complaint does not include the “short and plain statement” of the basis 23 for the Court’s jurisdiction required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). It identifies diversity 24 as one basis for the Court’s jurisdiction, but does not allege the parties’ citizenship. 25 Although the complaint seeks more than $75,000 in damages, it does not allege 26 the citizenship of any parties. A party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction must 27 affirmatively allege the actual citizenship of all the parties. Kanter v. Warner- 28 Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). See also Segundo Suenos, LLC 1 19cv1956ll 1 v. Jones, 494 Fed. Appx. 732, 735 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that when limited liability 2 company is a party, the citizenship of all its constituent members must be alleged); 3 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) (for purposes of ordinary diversity jurisdiction, a corporation 4 is a citizen of bot the state where it is incorporated and the state where it has its 5 principal place of business). 6 No other basis for the Court’s jurisdiction appears in the complaint. Its claims 7 appear to arise under California state law, not federal law. The complaint also 8 argues that the Court has jurisdiction because the state court lacks jurisdiction. 9 This is not correct, however. 10 The complaint also mentions an unlawful detainer action in state court, 11 without giving much information about what happened there or whether the case 12 is ongoing. It may be that the issues Mosier is seeking to litigate here have already 13 been decided in state court. If that is so, and if the state court judgment is final, this 14 Court lacks jurisdiction to review them. See Carmona v. Carmona, 603 F.3d 1041, 15 1050 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing Rooker-Feldman doctrine). 16 The Court is required to raise jurisdictional issues, even if the parties do not. 17 See Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939, 954 (9th Cir. 2011) (en 18 banc). As the party invoking the Court’s jurisdiction, Mosier is required to establish 19 that the Court had jurisdiction to hear his claims, and that until he does so, 20 jurisdiction is presumed to be lacking. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 21 Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). 22 The complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failing to invoke 23 the Court’s jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). No later than the close of 24 business on November 4, 2019, Mosier may file an amended complaint that 25 corrects the defects this order has identified, and shows that the Court has 26 jurisdiction. His amended complaint must be received by the Court within that time, 27 not merely postmarked or mailed. 28 /// 2 19cv1956ll 1 Any amended complaint must explain what issues were raised in his unlawful 2 detainer action, and what ultimately happened in that case. Mosier should also 3 attach to his amended complaint copies of any orders of the state court in that 4 case. 5 If Mosier fails to amend successfully as ordered, this action may be 6 dismissed without prejudice, but without leave to amend, for lack of 7 jurisdiction. 8 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 11, 2019 11 12 13 Honorable Larry Alan Burns Chief United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 19cv1956ll

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?