Farthing v. Turner Properties, LLC et al
Filing
9
Opinion and Order. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. Signed on 07/28/2014 by Judge Anna J. Brown. See attached 5 page Opinion and Order for full text. Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel 3 is MOOT. (bb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
KIP A. FARTHING,
Plaintiff,
3:14-CV-00841-BR
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
TURNER PROPERTIES, LLC, and
ASSOCIATION OF UNIT OWNERS OF
FLORENCE TERRACE CONDOMINIUM,
Defendants.
Kip A. Farthing
159 SW Florence Ave, L59
Gresham, OR 97030
(503) 995-4728
Plaintiff, Pro Se
BROWN, Judge.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the provisional in forma pauperis
status given Plaintiff Kip A. Farthing is confirmed.
For the
reasons set forth below, however, the Court dismisses Plaintiff's
1 - OPINION AND ORDER
Complaint without service of process on the ground that Plaintiff
fails to plead sufficient facts to establish this Court has
subject-matter jurisdiction.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
DISCUSSION
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and are
not empowered to hear every dispute presented by litigants.
See
A-Z Intern. v. Phillips, 323 F.3d 1141, 1145 (9th Cir. 2003)("It
is fundamental to our system of government that a court of the
United States may not grant relief absent a constitutional or
valid statutory grant of jurisdiction.
A federal court is
presumed to lack jurisdiction in a particular case unless the
contrary affirmatively appears.")(quotations omitted)).
See also
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 544 U.S. 280, 289
(2005)("[District courts] are courts of limited jurisdiction.
They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and
statute.”).
Original jurisdiction must be based on either diversity of
citizenship for cases involving more than $75,000 in damages
between citizens of different states or on a claim arising under
the United States Constitution or the laws or treaties of the
United States.
28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332.
"Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or
otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject
2 - OPINION AND ORDER
matter, the court shall dismiss the action."
12(h)(3).
Fed. R. Civ. P.
A court may dismiss sua sponte matters over which it
does not have jurisdiction.
Zavala v. Mukasey, No. 07-73381,
2007 WL 4515209, at *1 (9th Cir. Dec. 21, 2007).
Here Plaintiff alleges in his Complaint that he is a
resident of Oregon; Defendant Association of Unit Owners of
Florence Terrace Condominium is a nonprofit corporation
“organized and existing under the laws of the State of Oregon”;
and Defendant Turner Properties, LLC, is a limited liability
company with its principal place of business in Oregon.
To
establish diversity jurisdiction in the District of Oregon,
Plaintiff must allege he resides in the State of Oregon, each
Defendant resides in another state, and Plaintiff seeks damages
of more than $75,000.
In the alternative, Plaintiff may
establish diversity jurisdiction by alleging each Defendant is a
resident of Oregon, Plaintiff is a resident of another state, and
Plaintiff seeks damages of more than $75,000.
Although here
Plaintiff alleges he is a resident of Oregon and seeks damages in
excess of $75,000, Plaintiff does not allege each Defendant is a
resident of a state other than Oregon.
The Court, therefore,
does not have diversity jurisdiction over this case because all
Defendants in this action are not diverse from Plaintiff.
3 - OPINION AND ORDER
In addition, Plaintiff brings only state-law claims against
Defendants for violation of Oregon Revised Statute § 659A.145,
breach of fiduciary duty, and trespass.
Plaintiff does not
allege any claims arising under the United States Constitution or
the laws or treaties of the United States.
The Court, therefore,
also does not have original jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims;
i.e., this Court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over
this case.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint
for lack of jurisdiction.
The Court, however, grants Plaintiff
leave to amend his Complaint no later than July 3, 2014, if
he can allege facts showing the residency of all Defendants is
different from his or allege facts that support a claim arising
under the United States Constitution or the laws or treaties of
the United States.
If Plaintiff does not file an amended
complaint consistent with this Opinion and Order that cures the
noted deficiencies, the Court will enter a judgment of dismissal.
The Court notes Plaintiff may also move to voluntarily
dismiss this action without prejudice instead of filing an
4 - OPINION AND ORDER
amended complaint.
In that case, the Court also would enter a
judgment of dismissal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 6th day of June, 2014.
/s/ Anna J. Brown
ANNA J. BROWN
United States District Judge
5 - OPINION AND ORDER
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?