Russell et al v. Mueller-Song et al
Filing
18
ORDER granting defendants' 15 Motion to Dismiss signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS) cc plaintiffs
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
5
6
7
RAPHAEL RUSSELL, et al.,
8
Plaintiffs,
9
v.
10
MYONG SUK MUELLER SONG, et al.,
11
Defendants.
12
13
Pro Se Plaintiffs Raphael Russell, Lashaunda Russell, and Erica Calcote1 filed a
14
15
)
) CASE NO. C17-0698 RSM
)
) ORDER OF DISMISSAL
)
)
)
)
)
)
Complaint on March 24, 2017. Dkt. #7. After review of that Complaint, the Court noted several
16
deficiencies and directed Plaintiffs to file an Amended Complaint. Dkt. #10. On June 16, 2017,
17
18
Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. Dkt. #13. From what this Court can discern, Plaintiffs
19
allege claims arising from a property dispute. Mr. Russell complains that Defendants hit his
20
power line and cut his phone line while grading property with a bulldozer. Dkt. #13 at ¶ 2. Mr.
21
Russell further claims that Defendants trespassed on his property, damaged his phone lines and
22
23
removed dirt worth $73,000. Id. at ¶ ¶ 1-3. As a result, Plaintiffs seek an Order from this Court
24
directing Defendants to replace the damaged power and phone lines, pay for the dirt removed
25
from the property, and pay for other damages. Dkt. #13.
26
27
28
1
Ms. Calcote has since been voluntarily dismissed from this case. Dkt. #10.
ORDER
PAGE - 1
1
Defendants have moved for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction under Federal Rules of Civil
2
Procedure 12(b)(1). Dkt. #15. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate any basis for
3
federal jurisdiction. The Court agrees.
4
This Court previously informed Plaintiffs that property disputes of the nature described
5
in the Amended Complaint are typically matters of state law, to be handled in a state court. Dkt.
6
7
#10. While Plaintiff now appears to assert diversity jurisdiction in his Amended Complaint, his
8
assertion is misplaced. Diversity jurisdiction exists “where the matter in controversy exceeds . .
9
. $75,000 . . . and is between . . . [c]itizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Plaintiffs
10
do not demonstrate that this is a controversy between citizens of different states. Plaintiffs point
11
to alleged ethnicities and/or nationalities of the parties involved in this matter, see Dkt. #16 at 2,
12
13
but that does not satisfy the diversity statute, which speaks in terms of citizenship of a state.
14
As federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, a plaintiff bears the burden of
15
establishing that his case is properly filed in federal court. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.,
16
511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 1675, 128 L. Ed. 2d 391 (1994); In re Ford Motor
17
18
Co./Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., 264 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001). This burden, at the
19
pleading stage, must be met by pleading sufficient allegations to show a proper basis for the
20
federal court to assert subject matter jurisdiction over the action. McNutt v. General Motors
21
Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189, 56 S. Ct. 780, 785, 80 L. Ed. 1135 (1936). Further, the
22
Court will dismiss a Complaint at any time if the action fails to state a claim, raises frivolous or
23
24
malicious claims, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
25
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
26
jurisdiction.
27
28
ORDER
PAGE - 2
Here, Plaintiffs cannot meet the elements for diversity
1
2
As a result, the Court agrees with Defendants that it lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’
claims, and this matter must be dismissed. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS:
3
1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #15) is GRANTED.
4
2. This case is now CLOSED.
5
3. The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to Mr. and Mrs. Russell at 14751 N. Kelsey
6
St. #105, Box 137. Monroe, WA 98272.
7
8
9
DATED this 11th day of August 2017.
10
11
A
12
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER
PAGE - 3
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?