Duymayan v. American Express Co.

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 MERT DUYMAYAN, Case No. 2:25-cv-00226-JAD-EJY 5 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 6 v. RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING 7 AMERICAN EXPRESS CO., CASE ECF No. 5 8 Defendant. 9 On 2/18/25, the magistrate judge entered this report and recommendation [ECF No. 5]: 10 11 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. ECF No. 4. Plaintiff was 12 granted in forma pauperis status on February 6, 2025. ECF No. 3. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint 13 is identical to his original Complaint with the exception of claiming federal question rather than 14 diversity jurisdiction. Compare ECF Nos. 1-1 to 4. 15 As did Plaintiff’s original Complaint, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint alleges only one claim; 16 that his credit limit was lowered after a purchase at Wal-Mart and, after complaining and a promise 17 to raise his limit, Defendant failed to do so. ECF No. 4 at 4. Plaintiff identifies no cause of action, 18 not statutory violation, and no alleged violation of the constitution. Plaintiff also does not allege any 19 facts supporting his $5,000,000 in damages. Id. 20 The Court has a duty to ensure that it has subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute before 21 it, an issue it may raise at any time during the proceedings. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 22 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and possess only that power authorized by the 23 Constitution and statute. See Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 489 (2004). “A federal court is presumed 24 to lack jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” Stock West, Inc. 25 v.Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989). “The party 26 asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving that the case is properly in federal court.” 27 McCauley v. Ford Motor Co., 264 F.3d 952, 95 1 doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th 2 Cir. 1992). 3 Federal district courts “have original [subject matter] jurisdiction of all civil actions arising 4 under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Federal district 5 courts also have subject matter jurisdiction over civil actions in diversity cases “where the matter in 6 controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000” and where the matter is between “citizens of 7 different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). “Section 1332 requires complete diversity of citizenship; 8 each of the plaintiffs must be a citizen of a different state than each of the defendants.” Morris v. 9 Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2001). 10 Here, whether the Court looks to diversity of citizenship or federal question, Plaintiff’s 11 Amended Complaint fails to plead sufficient facts to establish a basis for jurisdiction. Specifically, 12 Plaintiff identifies no statute, code, common law, or constitutional provision allegedly violated; and 13 Plaintiff again fails to plead a plausible factual basis for his damages. It is Plaintiff’s obligation to 14 present factual allegations sufficient to state a claim for relief. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341- 15 42 (9th Cir. 2010). The pleading standard established by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 “does 16 not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant- 17 unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Aschcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (internal quotation 18 omitted). However, a plaintiff may not simply state that a defendant did him wrong without 19 providing notice of the actual claims against the defendant. Benitez v. Schumacher, Case No. 2:20- 20 CV-00396-FMO-SHK, 2020 WL 6526352, at *12 (C.D. Cal. May 4, 2020). 21 The Court’s February 6, 2025 Order advised Plaintiff that an amended complaint had to 22 include sufficient facts to establish jurisdiction. ECF No. 3. Plaintiff was further advised that any 23 amended complaint had to be complete in and of itself containing all facts and identifying all wrongs 24 allegedly committed. Id. Plaintiff was told that “failure to comply with the content of th[e] … Order 25 … [would] result in a recommendation that this matter be dismissed in its entirety.” Id. 26 Plaintiff has twice failed to plead sufficient facts to establish a basis for the exercise of 27 jurisdiction. ECF Nos. 1-1, 4. Plaintiff has also twice failed to plead facts and law sufficient to give 1 || appropriate to recommend dismissal of this action. Wong v. Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 361-62 (9 2 || Cir.1981) (“A trial court may act on its own initiative to note the inadequacy of a complaint at 3 || dismiss it for failure to state a claim ..., but ... must give notice of its sua sponte intention to” dismi 4 || and give the plaintiff some opportunity to respond “unless the [p]laintiff[] cannot possibly w 5 || relief.”) G@nternal citation omitted). 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this matter be dismissed witho 7 || prejudice, but without leave to amend. 8 Dated this 18th day of February, 2025. 10 . ELAYNAY. YOU: 1 AYN Hy0U AS mn JUDGE 12 13 14 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION 15 The deadline for any party to object to this recommendation was 3/4/25, and no party filed 16 || anything or asked to extend the deadline to do so. “[N]o review is required of a magistrate judge’s 17 || report and recommendation unless objections are filed.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3« 18 |] 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Having reviewed the report and recommendation, I find good cause to 19 || adopt it, and I do. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 20 || Recommendation [ECF No. 5] is ADOPTED in its entirety, this case is DISMISSED, and the 21 |! Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE. 22 23 oy D ee US. Districtudge Tennh □□□ A. Dorsey 24 Dated: March 5, 2025 25 26 27 28