Fallon v. Estate of Robert J. Bracken

• Court: District Court, Northern Mariana Islands
• Decided: August 20, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00005
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

FILED Clerk 1 District Court 5 AUG 20 2025 for the Northern. Mariana Islands 3 By 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (Depsty □□□□□ FOR THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS 6 7 || ALEXIS FALLON, Case No. 1:25-cv-00005 8 Plaintiff, 9 ‘DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING v. DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS 10 WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND ESTATE OF ROBERT J. BRACKEN, PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO AMEND 11 |} ESTATE OF VICTORINO IGITOL, and . TANO GROUP, INC., 13 Defendants. 14 15

16 I. M Before the Court are Defendants Estate of Robert J. Bracken and Estate of Victorino 18 Igitol’s separate Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff Alexis Fallon’s Verified Complaint (ECF No. 1) 19 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (“Mots.,” ECF Nos. 4-5.) Each Motion is supported by a 20 41 Memorandum of Law. (ECF Nos. 4-1, 5-1.) ” Plaintiff Fallon requested and the Court granted her motion for an extension of time to 23 || file an opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. (Order, ECF No. 8.) In her Response to 24 |! both Motions (“Response,” ECF No. 9), Fallon through her counsel Steven Pixley states, °5 “Plaintiff does not contest dismissal of the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter 26 jurisdiction.” Ud. at 2.) Fallon informs the Court that she seeks leave to amend her complaint to 27 28

1 allege subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. (Id. at 2-3.) Based on these 2 filings, the Court finds that oral argument is unnecessary, and the motions are taken on the briefs. 3 LR 7.1(a)(2). 4 II. 5 Fallon asserted in her Verified Complaint that the Court had “subject matter jurisdiction 6 under 9 U.S.C. § 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) because Plaintiff seeks to enforce a 7 8 written agreement to arbitrate. . . .” (Verified Compl. ¶ 2.) In Fallon’s Response, she concedes 9 that the Federal Arbitration Act alone does not confer subject matter jurisdiction for the 10 enforcement of an agreement to arbitrate, and therefore, does not oppose Defendants’ Motions 11 to Dismiss. (Response 2.) On the Court’s own review of her Verified Complaint, Fallon does not 12 allege sufficient facts to establish the Court has subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of 13 diversity jurisdiction. (See Verified Compl.); Rainero v. Archon Corp., 844 F.3d 832, 840 (9th 14 15 Cir. 2016) (“The party seeking to invoke the district court’s diversity jurisdiction always bears 16 the burden of both pleading and proving diversity jurisdiction.”) 17 For these reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss 18 WITHOUT PREJUDICE and WITH LEAVE for Fallon to amend her complaint by filing 19 her Petition to Compel Arbitration Pursuant to § 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act within 20 fourteen days of the Court issuing this order. 21 III. 22 23 Four days after her Response was filed, Fallon filed a pro se Motion for Leave to Amend. 24 (ECF No. 10.) She attached a Petition to Compel Arbitration Pursuant to § 4 of the Federal 25 Arbitration Act (ECF No. 10-1), a memorandum in support of her motion to compel (ECF No. 26 10-2), a declaration from herself (ECF No. 10-3), and a proposed order granting her Petition to 27 1 || Compel Arbitration (ECF No. 10-4). She further filed a master list of exhibits and attached those > |! exhibits. (See ECF No. 11). The same day, Fallon also filed a Motion to Shorten Time (ECF No. 12) seeking an order shortening time for Defendants to file their opposition to her “First Amended Complaint (‘Petition to Compel Arbitration’)” and requested a hearing on her petition to compel

‘ arbitration to be set on September 4, 2025, the same day the pending motions to dismiss have

7 || been set for a hearing. (/d. at 1-2.) Today, she filed a Motion to Supplement the Record. (ECF 8 || No. 14.) Having granted Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss the operative pleading before the Court, 9 || Fallon’s Motion for Leave to Amend (ECF No. 10), Motion to Shorten Time (ECF No. 12), and 10 |! Motion to Supplement the Record (ECF No. 14) are DENIED as MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED this 20™ day of August 2025. 12 13 14 RAMONA V. tls. Chief Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28