McGee v. Auto Plus Towing

— 1 — — 2 — 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 5 — 6 ANTHONY MCGEE, Case No. 23-cv-03285-TLT 7 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 8 v. REGARDING SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 9 AUTO PLUS TOWING, Defendant. — 10 — — 11 — 12 On June 30, 2023, Plaintiff Anthony McGee (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed a 13 complaint against Auto Plus Towing (“Defendant”). See Pl. [’s] Compl. (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1. 14 Plaintiff’s complaint alleges “acts of fraud” against Defendant in violation of the “United States 15 Code” and alleged violations of California’s “towing law of 2021.” Id. ¶¶ 2, 6,11 16 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction….” Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 , 256 17 (2013) (citing Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (internal 18 quotation marks omitted)). Courts have a duty to consider its subject matter jurisdiction sua 19 sponte, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3), and the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the existence of 20 subject matter jurisdiction. See Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014). If the 21 court determines it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it may dismiss an action sua sponte. 22 Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Grp., Inc., 336 F.3d 982 , 985 (9th Cir. 2003). For federal 23 subject matter jurisdiction to exist, a case must either involve diversity of citizenship between the 24 parties or involve a claim arising under federal law. See Wayne v. DHL Worldwide Express, 294 25 F.3d 1179 , 1183 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002); 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331-32 . 26 Here, it is unclear here whether the Court has federal question jurisdiction over this case. 27 Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 requires a civil action to arise under the 1 fraud” claim against Defendant under the “United States Code,” but he fails to specify which 2 federal statutes or codes apply to his claim. See Rivet v. Regions Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470 , 475 3 (1998) (“[T]he presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well4 pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal 5 question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.”) (quoting 6 Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987)). 7 It is also unclear whether the parties are diverse and whether the amount in controversy in 8 this matter exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 to establish diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 9 1332. A district court has diversity jurisdiction where the parties are diverse and “the matter in 10 controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs.” Id. at § 11 1332(d)(2). Parties are diverse when the parties are “citizens of different states.” Id. at § 12 1332(a)(1). A corporation is considered a citizen of both the state in which it is incorporated and 13 the state where it has its principal place of business. Id. at § 1332 (c)(1). A natural person’s state 14 of citizenship is determined by the state of domicile. Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 15 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). 16 Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant “is a towing company operating out of the State of 17 California whose base of primary operations is located in Oakland, CA.” Compl. ¶ 3. Therefore, 18 based on Plaintiff’s allegations, Defendant is a citizen of California. Similarly, Plaintiff lists his 19 address as “1025 Mckay Dr. #37, San Jose, CA 95131,” which indicates he is also a citizen of 20 California. See Compl. Because both Plaintiff and Defendant are citizens of California, there is 21 no diversity of citizenship to establish diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a)(1). 22 Finally, federal courts have diversity jurisdiction over civil actions “where the matter in 23 controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000….” 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a). In his complaint, 24 Plaintiff alleges that he was injured because he “did not receive a fifty-four ($54.00) dollar 25 rebate,” and he was “charged a total of $390.00 for storage fees and towing fees.” Compl. ¶¶ 926 10. However, these alleged amounts, alone, do not exceed the $75,000 amount in controversy 27 required to establish diversity jurisdiction. As such, it is unclear whether the amount in 1 As it is not clear that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action, by no later 2 || than July 24, 2023, Plaintiff shall explain in writing why this case should not be dismissed for 3 || lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Leite, 749 F.3d at 1121 (holding that the plaintiff bears the 4 || burden of establishing the existence of subject matter jurisdiction.). Alternatively, Plaintiff may 5 respond to this order to show cause by filing a second amended complaint by July 24, 2023, 6 || which clearly and simply states (1) the basis for subject matter jurisdiction, (2) the claim Plaintiff 7 seeks to bring in federal court against Defendant (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8), and (3) the specific 8 action(s) Defendant allegedly took, or failed to take, and the injury resulting from the claim. 9 The Court further advises Plaintiff that the District Court has produced a guide for self10 || represented/pro se litigants called Representing Yourself in Federal Court: A Handbook for Pro Se 11 Litigants, which provides instructions on how to proceed at every stage of a case, including 12 || discovery, motions, and trial. It is available electronically online. The Court also advises Plaintiff 5 13 that assistance is available through the Legal Help Center. Parties can make an appointment to 14 speak with an attorney who can provide basic legal information and assistance. The Help Center 3 15 does not see people on a “drop-in” basis and will not be able to represent parties in their cases. 16 || There is no charge for this service. The website is available at https://cand.uscourts.gov/legal-help. IT IS SO ORDERED. || Datea: July 3, 2023 — 19 — eek TRINA IMPSON United States District Judge — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — — 25 — — 26 — — 27 — — 28 —