Le v. Firemans Fund Insurance et al

Filing 38

ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS - Granting Defendants' 11 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; granting 17 Motion to Dismiss; granting 33 Motion to Dismiss by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(MD) Modified on 7/30/2013-mailed copy of order to pltf (MD).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

JACQUELYN A LE,

11

CASE NO. C13-517-MJP

12
13

Plaintiff,

ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS

v.
FIREMANS FUND INSURANCE, et. al.
Defendants.

14
15
16

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Randy Hess, Fireman’s Fund

17 Insurance Companies, and Barbara Christensen’s unopposed motions to dismiss for lack of
18 jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to state a claim where relief may be granted. (Dkt. Nos.
19 11, 17, 33.) Having reviewed the motions and related papers, the Court GRANTS the motions
20 and DISMISSES the case.
Background

21
22

Plaintiff’s allegations consist of the following:

23

After requesting certified documentation in support of the medical trust
accounting approved in the Superior Court of California County of Placer Probate
Division case number SPR 5633 in connection with personal injury case number

24

ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS- 1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

375600 in the Superior Court of California County of Orange I was denied access
to the certified documents. I discovered through investigation that I was never
told by my attorneys Randy M. Hess and Barbara B. Christensen the amount of
the settlement I was awarded for medical and punitive damages in the Superior
Court of California County of Orange case number 375600. I have never received
payment of the funds awarded and approved by the court for case number 375600
heard in the Superior Court of the State of California in the County of Orange. I
would like the Court to order the defendants to provide certified documentation of
the court approved settlement for case number 375600 and documentation of
payment of the judgment and certified documentation of disbursement of funds. I
ask that the Court require the defendants to pay to me the amount I was awarded
in judgment for case number 375600 in the Superior Court of California County
of Orange which initially asked for $6,500,000 Six Million Five Hundred
Thousand Dollars.

8
(Dkt. No. 7.)
9
Analysis
10
Defendants move for dismissal on the grounds this Court lacks jurisdiction, venue is
11
improper, and Plaintiff fails to state a claim. (Dkt. Nos. 11, 17, 33). Because the Complaint fails
12

to allege facts to establish this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, the Court GRANTS the

13
motions and DISMISSES the case.
14
A complaint must be dismissed under Fed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(1) if, considering the factual
15
allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the action: (1) does not arise under the
16
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, or does not fall within one of the other
17
enumerated categories of Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution; (2) is not a case or
18
controversy within the meaning of the Constitution; or (3) is not one described by any
19
jurisdictional statute. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 198 (1962); see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal
20
question jurisdiction); 1332 (diversity jurisdiction). When considering a motion to dismiss
21
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), the court is not restricted to the face of the pleadings, but may review
22
any evidence to resolve factual disputes concerning the existence of jurisdiction. McCarthy v.
23
United States, 850 F.2d 558, 560 (9th Cir. 1988). A federal court is presumed to lack subject
24

ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS- 2

1 matter jurisdiction until plaintiff establishes otherwise. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of
2 America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).

Therefore, plaintiff bears the burden of proving the

3 existence of subject matter jurisdiction. Stock West, Inc. v. Confederated Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221,
4 1225 (9th Cir. 1989).
5

When a motion is made pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), plaintiff has the burden of

6 proving that the court has subject matter jurisdiction. Tosco Corp. v. Communities for a Better
7 Environment, 236 F.3d 495, 499 (9th Cir. 2001). Plaintiff must demonstrate the existence of
8 whatever is essential to federal jurisdiction, and, if plaintiff does not do so, the court, on having
9 the defect called to its attention or on discovering the defect, must dismiss the case, unless the
10 defect can be cured by amendment. Smith v. McCullough, 270 U.S. 456, 459 (1926).
11

Defendants argue dismissal is appropriate because Plaintiff fails to allege any facts to

12 invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 11 at 3.) Indeed, absent from the Complaint is any
13 basis for this Court to conclude it has jurisdiction. For example, although the complaint alleges a
14 sufficient amount in controversy ($6,500,000), the Complaint does not allege the parties are
15 diverse, as required for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1332. Nor does the Complaint, on its face,
16 raise a federal question or assert a claim against the United States. Although the motions advised
17 Plaintiff of this jurisdictional problem, she failed to respond or otherwise attempt to cure the
18 deficiencies. The Court therefore DISMISSES the case without prejudice.
19

Conclusion

20

Having determined this Court lacks jurisdiction, the Court GRANTS the motions (Dkt.

21 Nos. 11, 17, 33) and DISMISSES the case.
22 //
23 //
24

ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS- 3

1 The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.
2

Dated this 30th day of July, 2013.

A

3
4

Marsha J. Pechman
Chief United States District Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS- 4