Mosier v. Quality Loan Service Corporation
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Larry Alan Burns (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se complaint seeking damages related to a trustee's sale and quiet title, which failed to allege the citizenship of the parties required for diversity jurisdiction. The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice and granted the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint by November 4, 2019, to establish jurisdiction and address potential Rooker-Feldman issues.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Complaint dismissed without prejudice for failure to invoke jurisdiction“The complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failing to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the complaint failed to meet the pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1) by not affirmatively alleging the citizenship of all parties, which is a prerequisite for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The court also correctly noted its obligation to raise jurisdictional issues sua sponte. Dismissing without prejudice is the standard procedural remedy when a complaint fails to state a basis for jurisdiction but the defect is curable. |
Leave to amend granted with specific instructions“No later than the close of business on November 4, 2019, Mosier may file an amended complaint that corrects the defects this order has identified, and shows that the Court has jurisdiction.” | agree with court Granting leave to amend is consistent with the liberal amendment standards of Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), particularly for pro se litigants where the defect is jurisdictional and curable. The court provided specific guidance on what the amended complaint must include (citizenship, details of the state court action), which is appropriate to ensure the amendment is effective. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the failure to plead citizenship as a fatal defect for diversity jurisdiction. It appropriately cites binding Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court authority regarding the burden of proving jurisdiction and the court's duty to raise jurisdictional defects. The reference to Rooker-Feldman is cautious ('may be that...'), acknowledging that the facts are not fully developed but flagging a potential bar to jurisdiction if the state court judgment is final. The remedy (dismissal without prejudice with leave to amend) is standard and appropriate for a curable jurisdictional defect in a pro se case.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID MOSIER Case No.: 19cv1956-LAB (LL)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 13 v. 14 QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORP., et al. 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff David Mosier, who is representing himself, filed his complaint asking 19 for damages in connection with a trustee’s sale, an order rescinding a recorded 20 deed of trust and trustee’s deed upon sale and quieting title, and correcting any 21 resulting any negative credit reporting. 22 The complaint does not include the “short and plain statement” of the basis 23 for the Court’s jurisdiction required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). It identifies diversity 24 as one basis for the Court’s jurisdiction, but does not allege the parties’ citizenship. 25 Although the complaint seeks more than $75,000 in damages, it does not allege 26 the citizenship of any parties. A party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction must 27 affirmatively allege the actual citizenship of all the parties. Kanter v. Warner- 28 Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). See also Segundo Suenos, LLC 1 v. Jones, 494 Fed. Appx. 732, 735 (9 Cir. 2012) (holding that when limited liability 2 company is a party, the citizenship of all its constituent members must be alleged); 3 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) (for purposes of ordinary diversity jurisdiction, a corporation 4 is a citizen of bot the state where it is incorporated and the state where it has its 5 principal place of business). 6 No other basis for the Court’s jurisdiction appears in the complaint. Its claims 7 appear to arise under California state law, not federal law. The complaint also 8 argues that the Court has jurisdiction because the state court lacks jurisdiction. 9 This is not correct, however. 10 The complaint also mentions an unlawful detainer action in state court, 11 without giving much information about what happened there or whether the case 12 is ongoing. It may be that the issues Mosier is seeking to litigate here have already 13 been decided in state court. If that is so, and if the state court judgment is final, this 14 Court lacks jurisdiction to review them. See Carmona v. Carmona, 603 F.3d 1041, 15 1050 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing Rooker-Feldman doctrine). 16 The Court is required to raise jurisdictional issues, even if the parties do not. 17 See Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939, 954 (9th Cir. 2011) (en 18 banc). As the party invoking the Court’s jurisdiction, Mosier is required to establish 19 that the Court had jurisdiction to hear his claims, and that until he does so, 20 jurisdiction is presumed to be lacking. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 21 Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). 22 The complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failing to invoke 23 the Court’s jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). No later than the close of 24 business on November 4, 2019, Mosier may file an amended complaint that 25 corrects the defects this order has identified, and shows that the Court has 26 jurisdiction. His amended complaint must be received by the Court within that time, 27 not merely postmarked or mailed. 28 / / / 1 Any amended complaint must explain what issues were raised in his unlawful 2 ||detainer action, and what ultimately happened in that case. Mosier should also 3 attach to his amended complaint copies of any orders of the state court in that 4 case. 5 If Mosier fails to amend successfully as ordered, this action may be 6 ||dismissed without prejudice, but without leave to amend, for lack of 7 || jurisdiction. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 ||Dated: October 11, 2019 11 / ot 4 G Ye 12 Honorable Larry Alan Burns 43 Chief United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28