Wilmington Savings Fund Society v. Fryberg et al

Filing 6

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, on or before 8/25/2017, why the Court should not dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction by filing an amended complaint that adequately establishes federal jurisdiction, signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
10
11

WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND
SOCIETY, FSB, DOING BUSINESS AS
CHRISTIANA TRUST, NOT IN ITS
INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY BUT
SOLELY AS TRUSTEE FOR BCAT
2014-6TT,

14
15

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiff,

12
13

Case No. C17-1196RSL

v.
COREY FRYBERG, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On August 8, 2017, plaintiff filed

18

the above-captioned matter seeking to enforce a Note and Deed of Trust executed by

19

defendant Corey Fryberg regarding property located within the Tulalip Reservation.

20

Plaintiff alleges that this Court has jurisdiction over its claims based on diversity of

21

citizenship and Tulalip Tribal Code 2.05.020. Plaintiff has not, however, provided the

22

citizenship of the various parties involved in this litigation. Nor has it given any

23

indication why TTC 2.05.020, which states that the Tulalip Tribal Court has jurisdiction

24

over matters having to do with rights in or encumbrances to lands within the Tulalip

25
26

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 1

1
2

Reservation, supports this Court’s jurisdiction.
The party seeking a federal venue has the burden of establishing this Court’s

3

subject matter jurisdiction (In re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust

4

Litig., 546 F.3d 981, 984 (9th Cir. 2008)), and it has long been recognized that the Court

5

can sua sponte consider the issue of subject matter jurisdiction at any time during the

6

proceeding (Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Group, Inc., 336 F.3d 982, 985 (9th

7

Cir. 2003); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3)). Plaintiff has failed to show that there is “complete

8

diversity of citizenship between the parties opposed in interest.” Kuntz v. Lamar Corp.,

9

385 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal citation omitted). It therefore appears that

10

there is no basis for federal jurisdiction over this matter. Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED

11

TO SHOW CAUSE on or before August 25, 2017, why the Court should not dismiss this

12

action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction by filing an amended complaint that

13

adequately establishes federal jurisdiction. The Clerk of the Court is directed to place this

14

order to show cause on the Court’s calendar for August 25, 2017.

15
Dated this 17th day of August, 2017.
16
17

A

18

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 2