(PS) Mokaram v. Hofyani

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 SAYAD MOKARAM, et al. No. 2:24-cv-2613-DJC-CKD (PS) 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER 14 SABIRA HOFYANI, et al., 15 Defendants. [17] 18 Plaintiffs, Sayed Mokaram and Farokh Sadat, proceed pro se with claims for invasion of 19 privacy, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, among other claims. (See 20 ECF No. 1, Complaint.) All defendants, Sabira Hofyani, Sayed Rahmatullah Hofyani, Zakia 21 Hofyani, Maryalla Dashti, and S. Mahmood Zia Dashti, also proceed pro se. (See ECF Nos. 4-7.) 22 This matter is before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 23 636(b)(1). On sua sponte review, the court finds the complaint must be dismissed because it fails 24 to establish the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs will have an opportunity to correct 25 the jurisdictional defects in the complaint to the extent they can do so. 26 I. Background 27 Plaintiffs, Sayed Mokaram and Farokh Sadat, initiated this action on September 27, 2024, 28 with a complaint for damages for invasion of privacy, negligence, aiding and abetting, conspiracy 1 to commit murder, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and harassment. (ECF No. 1 at 1.) 2 The complaint alleges this court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case “pursuant to 28 3 U.S.C. § 1331 , as the claims presented involve questions of federal law.” (Id. at 3.) 4 II. Discussion 5 Courts are required sua sponte to examine jurisdictional issues. Molski v. Arby's 6 Huntington Beach, 359 F. Supp. 2d 938, 943 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (citing B.C. v. Plumas Unified 7 School District, 192 F.3d 1260 , 1264 (9th Cir. 1999).) Federal courts are courts of limited 8 jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. Of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). 9 The presumption is against jurisdiction and “the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the 10 party asserting jurisdiction.” Vacek v. U.S. Postal Serv., 447 F.3d 1248, 1250 (9th Cir. 2006) 11 (citing Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377 ). “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject12 matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); see Franklin v. 13 State of Or., State Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1342 (9th Cir. 1981) (court “may dismiss an 14 action sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction”). 15 A review of the complaint shows the court lacks jurisdiction over the dispute. Contrary to 16 the complaint’s conclusory jurisdictional allegation, the claims presented neither arise under 17 federal law nor involve questions of federal law. Under the “well-pleaded complaint rule,” a suit 18 arises under federal law only when the plaintiff’s statement of his own cause of action shows that 19 it is based upon federal law. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009). A complaint 20 purporting to rest on state law can be recharacterized as one “arising under” federal law if the law 21 governing the complaint is exclusively federal. Id. at 61-62 (quoting Beneficial Nat. Bank v. 22 Anderson, 539 U.S. 1, 8 (2003)). 23 The only reference to federal law in any of plaintiffs’ claims appears in count one for 24 “invasion of privacy.” Plaintiffs bring this claim against individual defendants who are not 25 alleged to have taken any actions under color of law. Plaintiffs allege their “right to privacy is a 26 recognized legal right, protected under both federal and state laws, which includes an individual’s 27 right to keep their personal information private and protected from unauthorized use or 28 disclosure.” (ECF No. 1 at 6.) This allegation does not suffice to show plaintiffs’ cause of action 1 against the defendants for “invasion of privacy” is based upon federal law or arises under federal 2 law. Plaintiffs do not cite any federal statute under which they allege their personal information 3 was protected. Plaintiffs also do not allege any federal statute that creates a private cause of action 4 for them to bring a civil claim against defendants for “invasion of privacy.” The mere allegation 5 that the right to privacy is protected under federal law fails to establish the court’s subject matter 6 jurisdiction. See Vaden, 556 U.S.at 60. 7 The other claims set forth in plaintiffs’ complaint, for negligence, aiding and abetting, 8 conspiracy to commit murder, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and harassment, are 9 devoid of any allegations indicating a claim is based upon federal law or arises under federal law. 10 Thus, the complaint does not plead a federal claim or a claim based on federal law. 11 Plaintiffs have not identified an independent grant of jurisdiction conferring access to this 12 forum and have failed to meet their burden to establish the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. See 13 Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377 ; Vacek, 447 F.3d at 1250 . Plaintiffs will be granted an opportunity to 14 amend, but if they cannot establish the court’s subject matter jurisdiction, then this action belongs 15 in state court. 16 III. Conclusion and Order 17 The complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. 18 P. 12 (b)(1). In light of the dismissal of the complaint, the court will vacate the hearing set for 19 December 4, 2024, and deny as moot the defendants’ motions to dismiss. 20 The court will also deny plaintiffs’ motion to compel disclosure of address information 21 pertaining to defendants alleged to defendants Maryalla Dashti and S. Mahmood Zia Dashti, who 22 are alleged to reside in Turkey.1 (ECF No. 12.) Because plaintiffs’ complaint must be dismissed 23 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the court does not find early discovery to be warranted at 24 this time. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d). 25 //// 26 //// [27] 1 On November 7, 2024, some of the defendants opposed plaintiffs’ motion to compel disclosure 28 of address information, stating they do not know the requested address. (ECF No. 14.) 1 In accordance with the above, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 2 1. The hearing set to take place on December 4, 2024, is VACATED. 3 2. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel disclosure of address information (ECF No. 12) is denied. 4 3. Plaintiffs’ complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED with leave to amend for lack of 5 || subject matter jurisdiction; plaintiffs are granted 30 days to file an amended complaint setting 6 || forth subject matter jurisdiction, or, if they cannot do so, plaintiffs may file a notice of voluntary 7 || dismissal which will terminate this action by operation of law. 8 4. If plaintiffs file an amended complaint, defendants’ responsive pleadings and/or 9 || motions are due within 30 days thereafter. 10 5. The motions to dismiss by defendants Sabira Hofyani, Sayed Rahmatullah Hofyani, 11 || Zakia Hofyani, and Maryalla Dashti (ECF Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7) are denied as moot. 12 | Dated: November 12, 2024 / ae / a Ly a 13 CAROLYN K DELANEY 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE [15] 16 8, moka24ev2613.jx