Daniel Jason Port v. Kristi Marie Hoff

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 DANIEL JASON PORT, Case No. 25-cv-09219-JD

5 Plaintiff, ORDER RE REMAND, DISMISSAL, 6 v. STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS, AND VACATING HEARING 7 KRISTI MARIE HOFF,

Defendant. 8

9 Pro se plaintiff Port’s request to remand the case to California state court, Dkt. No. 14, is 10 denied. The complaint alleges complete diversity of the parties and an amount in controversy in 11 excess of $75, 000. See Dkt. No. 1 at Ex. A. Consequently, traditional diversity subject matter 12 jurisdiction has been demonstrated. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Wondeh v. Change Healthcare Prac. 13 Mgmt. Sols., Inc., No. 19-cv-07824-JD, 2020 WL 5630268, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2020). 14 There is no “local injury” exception to traditional diversity jurisdiction, as Port suggests. Dkt. 15 No. 14 at ECF pp. 4-5. Port’s request to determine remand first, Dkt. No. 15, is terminated. 16 For defendant Hoff’s request to dismiss and strike, Dkt. No. 12, although the pro se 17 complaint is given a generous reading, Nordin v. Scott, No. 3:21-CV-04717-JD, 2021 WL 18 4710697, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2021) (citation omitted), aff’d, No. 22-15816, 2023 WL 19 4418595 (9th Cir. July 10, 2023), Port is still expected to follow the rules of procedure, Daniels v. 20 Meta Platforms Inc., No. 25-CV-05137-JD, 2025 WL 2960149, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2025). 21 Port did not oppose the request, even though he filed briefs for several other issues. Port is 22 advised that further defaults along these lines will likely result in a determination adverse to him. 23 The problem with the request to dismiss and strike is that it relies heavily on materials 24 outside the complaint, and raises fact issues not suitable for disposition in the context of Rule 25 12(b)(6). Consequently, dismissal is denied. The request to strike the prayer for exemplary 26 damages is deferred pending developments in the record. With respect to personal jurisdiction 27 over Hoff in this District, Port is directed to file by May 15, 2026, a brief supported by facts ] Hoff’s request to “enjoin” state court proceedings, Dkt. No. 29, is denied under the Anti- 2 || Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283, and principles of federalism and comity. The record does not 3 || indicate that the narrow exceptions to the Act apply here. See Atl. Coast Line R. Co. v. Bhd. of 4 || Locomotive Eng’rs, 398 U.S. 281, 286 (1970); Montana v. BNSF Ry. Co., 623 F.3d 1312, 1315 5 (9th Cir. 2010). Hoff is perfectly free to advise the state court that remand has been denied. 6 The case is stayed in all respects other than the personal jurisdiction briefing. The hearing 7 set for April 2, 2026, is vacated. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: March 31, 2026 10 1] JAMES PONATO 12 United States District Judge

15 16

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28