Johnson v. LVNV Funding LLC

District Court, S.D. California · 3:20-cv-00192 · 2020-03-03 · Unknown

Proceeding: district
Area: civil
Panel: Malcolm F. Marsh (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T23:51Z · confidence high

The court reviewed a pro se plaintiff's complaint, which was identical to a previously remanded case and alleged only state law claims in response to a state court action. The court sua sponte dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

What the court decided	The model
Sua sponte dismissal of the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction “the Court similarly concludes that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint and sua sponte DISMISSES the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”	agree with court The court correctly applied the well-established principle that federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over cases containing only state law claims absent diversity jurisdiction (which is not alleged or present here given the identical parties and amount in controversy likely below the threshold or not properly pleaded). The court also correctly noted that federal question jurisdiction cannot be based on a federal defense or counterclaim (the 'well-pleaded complaint rule'). The dismissal is appropriate because the plaintiff filed a 'complaint' in federal court that was actually a response to a state court case, and the underlying claims were purely state law.

What the court decided

The model

Sua sponte dismissal of the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

“the Court similarly concludes that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint and sua sponte DISMISSES the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”

agree with court
The court correctly applied the well-established principle that federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over cases containing only state law claims absent diversity jurisdiction (which is not alleged or present here given the identical parties and amount in controversy likely below the threshold or not properly pleaded). The court also correctly noted that federal question jurisdiction cannot be based on a federal defense or counterclaim (the 'well-pleaded complaint rule'). The dismissal is appropriate because the plaintiff filed a 'complaint' in federal court that was actually a response to a state court case, and the underlying claims were purely state law.

The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and legally sound. It identifies the lack of federal question jurisdiction based on the well-pleaded complaint rule and the absence of diversity jurisdiction (implied by the state law nature of the claims and the context of the prior remand). The court's decision to dismiss sua sponte is appropriate when subject matter jurisdiction is lacking.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete possible bias

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MELINA JOHNSON, Case No.: 20CV192-GPC(RBB)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER SUA SPONTE DISMISSING 13 v. CASE FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 14 LVNV FUNDING LLC, MANDARACH LAW GROUP LLP, 15 Defendants. 16 17 On January 30, 2020, Plaintiff Melina Johnson, proceeding pro se, filed a 18 complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. No. 1.) On November 1, 19 2019, in Case Number 19cv2099-GPC(RBB), Plaintiff Melina Johnson filed the same 20 complaint and attached a copy of the state court filings. (Dkt. No. 19cv2099-GPC(RBB), 21 Dkt. No. 1.) Recognizing that a notice of removal was necessary, Plaintiff filed an 22 amended notice of removal. (Id., Dkt. No. 4.) After a review of the complaint and notice 23 of removal, on November 22, 2019, the Court sua sponte remanded the case to state court 24 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Id., Dkt. No. 5.) The underlying state court 25 complaint brought by LVNV Funding Inc. alleged causes of action for account stated and 26 27 28 1 || open book account seeking damages in the amount of $5,456.78. (/d., Dkt. No. 4 at □□□□ 2 || The Court explained that federal question jurisdiction is governed by a properly pleaded 3 ||complaint and cannot be based on a federal defense or counterclaim as Plaintiff was 4 ||claiming. (Ud. citing Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987); Holmes 5 || Grp., Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 831-32 (2002).) Because 6 complaint only alleged state law causes of action, the Court lacked subject matter 7 jurisdiction over the complaint. 8 In an attempt to circumvent the Court’s ruling remanding the case, on January 30, 9 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant complaint which is identical to the complaint filed in Case 10 || Number 19cv2099-GPC(RBB). (Dkt. No. 1.) In the instant complaint, Plaintiff does not 11 || attach the state court documents. However, the complaint states, “ANSWER: Case 12 |}number: 37-2019-00049900-CL-CL-NC”, (Dkt. No. 1 at 3), indicating she is filing a 13 || response/counterclaim to the state court complaint. Plaintiff improperly filed a complaint 14 ||in this Court. Because the underlying state court complaint only sought relief on state 15 || law causes of action, the Court similarly concludes that it does not have subject matter 16 jurisdiction over the complaint and sua sponte DISMISSES the complaint for lack of 17 || subject matter jurisdiction. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: March 3, 2020 <= 1 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 || ———___—_—_—- 28 Page numbers are based on the CM/ECF pagination.