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) (sjt).

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