Patel v. Microsoft Corporation

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE — 7 — RAJ K PATEL, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-00130-JHC — 8 — ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE — 9 — Plaintiff, — 10 — v. — 11 — MICROSOFT CORPORATION, — 12 — Defendant. — 13 — — 14 — Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Raj K Patel’s complaint. Dkt. # 8. In the complaint, — 15 — Plaintiff asserts the following claims against Defendant Microsoft: “Breach of Contract”; — 16 — “Breach of the Doctrine Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing”; “Fraud in the — 17 — Inducement”; “Fraud”; “Products Liability”; “Breach of Warranty”; “Strict Liability – The Law — 18 — Merchant”; “Negligent Breach of the Int’l Covenant of Civil and Political Rights”; “Breach of — 19 — the Indiana R.F.R.A.”; and “Breach of the United States R.F.R.A.” Dkt. # 8 at 2–5. While the — 20 — complaint does not explicitly state the basis for the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, the Court — 21 — assumes it asserts diversity jurisdiction as it addresses Plaintiff’s citizenship, the citizenship of — 22 — Defendant Microsoft, and the alleged amount in controversy. Dkt. # 8 at 1, 5. — 23 — — 24 — 1 Federal district courts are “courts of limited jurisdiction,” possessing “only that power 2 authorized by Constitution and statute.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 3 546, 552 (2005). Diversity jurisdiction exists when a lawsuit arises between citizens of different 4 states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332 . 5 If a federal district court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction at any time 6 during a dispute, it must dismiss the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Rosales v. United 7 States, 824 F.2d 799 , 803 n.4 (9th Cir. 1987). The party invoking jurisdiction must allege facts 8 that establish the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 , 9 560–61 (1992). At the pleading stage, a plaintiff can meet this burden by pleading sufficient 10 allegations to show a proper basis for the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over the action.” See 11 Gigi’s, Inc. v. Gina Butler, No. CV2003134ABPJWX, 2020 WL 5498069 , at *1 (C.D. Cal. June 12 23, 2020) (first citing McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. of Indiana, 298 U.S. 178 , 189 13 (1936)); and then citing St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283 , 288 n.10 14 (1938) (stating that a plaintiff must “allege with sufficient particularity the facts creating 15 jurisdiction”)). 16 If the plaintiff originally files in federal court, ‘the amount in controversy is determined 17 from the face of the pleadings.’ Crum v. Circus Circus Enters., 231 F.3d 1129, 1131 (9th 18 Cir.2000). “The sum claimed by the plaintiff controls so long as the claim is made in good 19 faith.” Id. (citing St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co., 303 U.S. at 288 ). 20 “[M]aking a claim in ‘good faith’ means that a plaintiff's ‘estimations of the amounts 21 recoverable must be realistic. The inquiry should be objective and not based on fanciful, pie-in22 the-sky, or simply wishful amounts, because otherwise the policy to limit diversity jurisdiction 23 will be frustrated.” Choudhuri v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 15-cv-03608-VC, 2016 WL 24 3212454, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 10, 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “Even l in liberally construing a complaint, the Court must still have some allegations from which it 2 ‘may infer a good faith basis for recovery of damages in such an amount.’” Gigi’s, Inc., 2020 3 WL 5498069 , at *2 (quoting Neat-N-Tidy Co. v. Tradepower (Holdings) Ltd., 777 F. Supp. 1153 , 4 1156 (S.D.N.Y. 1991)). 5 Courts may reject “conclusory, unsupported statement[s]” regarding alleged amounts in 6 controversy. /d.; see, e.g., Choudhuri, 2016 WL 3212454 , at *3 (“[Plaintiffs] bald assertion that 7 || the amount in controversy is ‘approximately $1 million’ is insufficient to establish that the 8 amount in controversy actually exceeds the jurisdictional threshold”); Kumvachirapitag v. Gates, g || No. 12-5075 JSC, 2012 WL 5835730 , at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2012) (dismissing for lack of 10 subject-matter jurisdiction because “even if Plaintiff did seek the many ‘septillions’ of dollars 11 listed in the Amended Complaint as damages, he failed to link these claims to any loss he has 12 suffered due to an action by the Defendants”). 13 Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of ““$336,000,000 to $7 billion (seven billion 14 dollars) ($1 per person in the world)[.]” Dkt. #8 at 5. But the complaint fails to link the asserted 15 claims with the alleged amount in controversy. Plaintiffs conclusory statement, unsupported by 16 additional details, does not meet the burden of establishing the requisite amount in controversy. 17 For these reasons, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause why this matter should not 1g || be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. If Plaintiff fails to provide the Court with the 19 information within fourteen (14) days of this order, the case will be dismissed with prejudice. — 20 — 21 Dated this 23" day of February, 2024. 22 c/ oh. 4. Chu 23 John H. Chun United States District Judge — 24 —