Leal de la Hoz v. Hush Communications Canada Inc

Filing 6

ORDER directing Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint within 21 days of this Order. Plaintiff is reminded that he is not to include personal identifiers in his Amended Complaint and that such information should be redacted or removed from his documents before filing. Signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (PM) cc: plaintiff via the U.S. Mail

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 5 6 7 HELIO J. LEAL DE LA HOZ, 8 Plaintiff, 9 10 11 v. HUSH COMMUNICATIONS CANADA, INC. 12 Defendant. 13 ) ) CASE NO. C17-1465 RSM ) ) ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO ) AMEND COMPLAINT ) ) ) ) ) 14 15 16 17 18 Pro Se Plaintiff Helio J. Leal de La Hoz, a Seattle resident, filed his Complaint on September 28, 2017. Dkt. #5. Summons has not yet been issued. Plaintiff’s claims relate to his “hushmail” email account with Defendant Hush Communications Canada, Inc. Plaintiff appears to make claims of theft and fraud arising from 19 20 Defendant’s October 23, 2016, disabling of Plaintiff’s account “because they had received a large 21 number of complaints denouncing my messages as spam.” Id. Plaintiff alleges he has lost access 22 to important documents and “intellectual Property, whose value I estimate in trillions of dollars.” 23 Id. Plaintiff also seeks as damages compensation for Plaintiff’s “adrenaline poisoning,” and to 24 be compensated for his time “litigating this evidence-based claim,” which Plaintiff calculates at 25 26 over 10,000 hours. Id. Plaintiff seeks total damages of “1,001,011,380,000.00 USD.” Id. 27 As federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, a plaintiff bears the burden of 28 establishing that his case is properly filed in federal court. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., ORDER PAGE - 1 1 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 1675, 128 L. Ed. 2d 391 (1994); In re Ford Motor 2 Co./Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., 264 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001). This burden, at the 3 pleading stage, must be met by pleading sufficient allegations to show a proper basis for the 4 federal court to assert subject matter jurisdiction over the action. McNutt v. General Motors 5 Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189, 56 S. Ct. 780, 785, 80 L. Ed. 1135 (1936). Further, the 6 7 Court will dismiss a Complaint at any time if the action fails to state a claim, raises frivolous or 8 malicious claims, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 9 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 10 In this case, Plaintiff appears to base federal jurisdiction on diversity, citing Defendant’s 11 residence as “either Vancouver, Canada or another state, Delaware, or both.” Dkt. #5 at 2. 12 13 However, Plaintiff has failed to present credible evidence that the damages at issue in this case 14 exceed the statutory requirement of $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Plaintiff’s valuation of 15 his email account at “trillions of dollars,” is facially frivolous. Plaintiff’s Complaint also fails 16 to set forth causes of action, citing theft and fraud only in passing. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 17 18 19 Complaint suffers from deficiencies that, if not corrected in an Amended Complaint, require dismissal. 20 Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that Plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint 21 no later than twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order. In the Amended Complaint, 22 Plaintiff must include a short and plain statement demonstrating to the Court that there is a legal 23 24 basis for his claims. Plaintiff shall identify what law or laws it believes Defendant has violated 25 through its alleged conduct. Finally, Plaintiff must plead specific facts demonstrating that the 26 damages at issue exceed $75,000. 27 28 ORDER PAGE - 2 1 In addition, Plaintiff is reminded that he is not to include personal identifiers in his 2 Amended Complaint, such as complete bank or credit card account numbers, social 3 security numbers, and the like, and that such information should be redacted or removed 4 from his documents before filing. 5 The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to Mr. Leal de La Hoz at 77 S. Washington St., 6 7 8 Seattle, WA 98104. DATED this 29th day of September 2017. 9 A 10 11 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 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?