Piovo v. Stone, 2:13-cv-01922

Piovo, a pro se plaintiff, filed suit in the District of Nevada alleging conspiracy to fraudulently take his home, originally asserting only state-law claims.
Piovo filed a second amended complaint purporting to state a single federal claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1982 on racial discrimination in housing.
Defendants moved to dismiss arguing lack of federal claim and lack of standing, among other defenses.
The court found no subject matter jurisdiction as the complaint failed to allege a federal claim or diversity jurisdiction and noted lack of standing.
Piovo was a beneficiary of a trust, and the court held beneficiaries generally lack standing to sue for harms to a trust absent a fiduciary-breach claim, which was not alleged.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 1982 claim provides federal subject matter jurisdiction	Piovo contends he presents federal housing-discrimination claim under § 1982.	Defendants argue Piovo fails to allege a viable federal claim or diversity sufficient for federal jurisdiction.	No subject matter jurisdiction; § 1982 claim inadequately pleaded
Whether Piovo has standing to sue as a trust beneficiary	Piovo seeks relief as a beneficiary for harms to the trust.	Beneficiaries generally lack standing to sue for harms to the trust absent a fiduciary breach.	Lack of standing; dismissal justified
Whether the complaint states a plausible federal claim under Iqbal/Twombly	Piovo alleges a broad Civil Rights conspiracy to deprive him of rights.	The complaint contains only conclusory and vague allegations with no specific facts showing violation of § 1982.	Complaint not plausible; fails to state a federal claim
Whether leave to amend should be granted	Piovo should be allowed to amend to cure deficiencies.	Amendment would be futile; plaintiff has already amended multiple times.	Leave to amend denied; dismissal without leave to amend appropriate

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) (two-step plausibility standard for pleading)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
City of Memphis v. Greene, 451 U.S. 100 (1981) (diversity/jederal jurisdiction considerations)
Phiffer v. Proud Parrot Motor Hotel, Inc., 648 F.2d 548 (9th Cir. 1980) (standing and pleading standards in civil rights context)
Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (reaffirming required specificity for substantial pleading and amendments)
Atascadero State Hosp. v. Merrill Lynch, 68 Cal.App.4th 445 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (state-law constitutional claims considerations (cited for pleading standards))
In re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Lit., 546 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2008) (subject-matter-jurisdiction considerations in dismissals)
Toumajian v. Frailey, 135 F.3d 648 (9th Cir. 1998) (standards for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction)
McCauley v. Ford Motor Co., 264 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2001) (dismissal standards and jurisdictional concerns)
Allen v. City of Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367 (9th Cir. 1990) (leave-to-amend considerations and futility analysis)