Iam v. Washington Mutual Bank, F.A.
4:12-cv-04106
N.D. Cal.Aug 7, 2012Background
- Plaintiff Judith Iam sues multiple defendants, including Washington Mutual Bank, JP Morgan Chase Bank, California Reconveyance Company, Fidelity National Title Company, MERS, and R.K. Arnold, asserting various state-law claims such as declaratory relief, accounting, breach of implied covenant, fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and quiet title.
- The Court raises subject matter jurisdiction concerns sua sponte, noting the complaint asserts no federal causes of action.
- Although the complaint references RESPA and TILA, there is no federal question element essential to federal jurisdiction.
- The complaint fails to plead the citizenship of any named defendant or the necessary diversity facts (state of incorporation, principal place of business, and citizenship for the national banking institution and individuals).
- The Court orders Iam to show cause in writing by August 31, 2012, detailing the source of federal jurisdiction and, if based on diversity, defendant citizenship and the amount in controversy.
- The Court acknowledges Iam’s pro se status and suggests seeking assistance from the Legal Help Center.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal question jurisdiction exists | Iam cites federal statutes (RESPA, TILA) as jurisdictional basis. | No federal claim asserted; federal issue not essential to plaintiff’s cause. | No federal question jurisdiction. |
| Whether there is diversity jurisdiction | Iam seeks jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. | Citizenship and place of incorporation/ownership not pled for defendants. | Diversity not established. |
| Whether amount in controversy supports jurisdiction | Plaintiff asserts an amount in controversy requirement is met. | Jurisdiction requires a definite amount; the complaint does not establish $75,000+ or the claimed $1,100,000. | Amount in controversy not demonstrated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; jurisdiction must affirmatively appear)
- Stock West, Inc. v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, 873 F.2d 1221 (9th Cir. 1989) (court presumes lack of jurisdiction unless shown)
- Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 925 (9th Cir. 1986) (burden on party seeking federal jurisdiction)
- Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (court must raise jurisdictional issues sua sponte)
- Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804 (1986) (mere federal issue in state case does not create jurisdiction)
- Christensen v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 633 F.2d 529 (9th Cir. 1980) (jurisdictional amount must be pleaded with sufficient clarity)