Henry James v. H-Mart Northwest Headquarters Office, et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: November 4, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01781
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 HENRY JAMES, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-01781-JHC 8

Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. 10 H-MART NORTHWEST 11 HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, et al.,

12 Defendants. 13

14 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte on pro se Plaintiff Henry James’s 15 Complaint (Dkt. # 5) and Motion to Serve Summons by the U.S. Marshals (Dkt. # 6). 16 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Richardson v. United States, 943 F.2d 17 1107, 1112 (9th Cir. 1991). “The plaintiff bears the burden of proving the existence of 18 jurisdiction.” Haisten v. Grass Valley Med. Reimbursement Fund, Ltd., 784 F.2d 1392, 1397 19 (9th Cir. 1986); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). This includes establishing that the Court has 20 subject-matter jurisdiction over the action. If, at any time, a “federal court concludes that it lacks 21 subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the complaint in its entirety.” Arbaugh v. 22 Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 23 24 1 Plaintiff asserts diversity jurisdiction as the basis for this Court’s subject-matter 2 jurisdiction. See Dkt. # 5 at 3. A district court has diversity jurisdiction over a civil action if: (1) 3 there is complete diversity of citizenship among the parties; and (2) the amount in controversy

4 exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Complete diversity exists 5 if “the citizenship of each plaintiff is diverse from the citizenship of each defendant.” 6 Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996). For the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, an 7 individual is a citizen of the state where they are domiciled, see Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 749- 8 50 (9th Cir. 1986), and a corporation is “a citizen of every State and foreign state by which it has 9 been incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its principal place of business.” 10 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c). 11 Here, Plaintiff has not established complete diversity. As alleged in the Complaint, 12 Plaintiff is “a citizen of the State of Washington and was a citizen of [Washington] during the

13 times and events in this complaint.” Dkt. # 5 at 7. According to the Complaint, Defendant H- 14 Mart Northwest Headquarters is a corporation that is “incorporated under the laws of the State of 15 Washington” and has a “principal place of business in the State of Washington.” Id. The 16 Complaint also alleges that Defendant Ohhyuk Kwon is an individual and “a citizen of 17 Washington.” Id. As the Complaint alleges that Plaintiff and two Defendants are citizens of 18 Washington, Plaintiff has not pleaded complete diversity and thus has not established subject- 19 matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 20 Although the Complaint does not assert federal question jurisdiction as a basis for subject- 21 matter jurisdiction, see generally Dkt. # 5, the Court also considers whether Plaintiff has 22 established subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d

23 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985) (en 24 banc) (courts have an obligation, “particularly in civil rights cases, to construe the pleadings 1 liberally and to afford the [pro se plaintiff] the benefit of any doubt”). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, a 2 district court has subject-matter jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, 3 laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “[A] suit arises under the Constitution

4 and laws of the United States only when the plaintiff’s statement of his own cause of action 5 shows that it is based upon those laws or that Constitution.” Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. 6 Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908). 7 Here, Plaintiff alleges violations of his rights under Washington state law and the Fourth 8 and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. See Dkt. # 5 at 6. As Plaintiff’s state-law 9 claims do not “arise” under a federal law, these claims cannot confer jurisdiction under 28 10 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff’s constitutional claims are also insufficient to confer federal question 11 jurisdiction. Although these claims are technically based on the Constitution, “[i]t is well- 12 established that the guarantees of the [Fourth] and Fourteenth amendments apply only to

13 governmental action, and not to private action.” Bradford v. Union Pac. R. Co., 767 F.3d 865, 14 870 (9th Cir. 2014) (cleaned up); see also United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984) 15 (quoting Walter v. United States, 447 U.S. 649, 662 (1980) (Blackmun, J., dissenting)).(Fourth 16 Amendment protections are “wholly inapplicable ‘to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable 17 one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of the Government or with the 18 participation or knowledge of any governmental official.’”). As Defendants are private parties 19 and the Complaint does not allege any governmental action, Plaintiff has failed to state a cause 20 of action that is based on the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. 21 Accordingly, the Court does not find that it has subject-matter jurisdiction under either 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1332 or § 1331.

23 Because the Court believes it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, it cannot consider the merits 24 of Plaintiff’s case nor rule on Plaintiff’s Motion to Serve Summons by the U.S. Marshals at this 1 time (Dkt. # 6). The Court thus ORDERS Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE within ten (10) days of the 2 || date of this order why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction 3 under Rule 12(b)(1). If Plaintiff does make this showing, the Court will re-note the Motion to 4 Serve Summons by the U.S. Marshals (Dkt. # 6). If Plaintiff does not make this showing, the 5 Court will dismiss the Complaint (Dkt. # 5) and Motion (Dkt. # 6) without prejudice. In such an 6 event, Plaintiff may seek to file suit in state court. 7 Dated this 4th day of November, 2025. [eta Chan 9 Jobn H. Chun United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24