1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ROBERT LINDBLAD, Case No. 21-cv-07548-JSC
8 Plaintiff, SCREENING ORDER PURSUANT TO 9 v. 28 U.S.C. § 1915
10 HAN LIN AUCTION GALLERY, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 1 Defendants. 11
12 13 The Court previously granted Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (Dkt. 14 No. 4.)1 It must now review the complaint’s allegations under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Because 15 Plaintiff’s claims do not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, the Court gives Plaintiff 16 the opportunity to amend the complaint. 17 COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS 18 The complaint alleges a real estate dispute over property located at 39-49 El Camino Real 19 in Millbrae, California. (Dkt. No. 1 at 4.) Plaintiff is a resident of San Francisco. He names four 20 Defendant entities: Han Lin Auction Gallery, located at 39 El Camino Real; Chien Lung Antiques, 21 located at the same address; Han Lin Auction Gallery, located at a different address of 66 21st 22 Avenue in San Mateo, California; and Think Tank Learning, located at 19925 Stevens Creek 23 Boulevard #168 in Cupertino, California. (Id. at 2.) According to Plaintiff, all Defendants are 24 organized under the laws of California and have their principal place of business here. (Id. at 3.) 25 Plaintiff alleges that the property, “a former film festival building,” “has been converted to 26 proprietor-oriented business establishments with representation of items sold in the legend of the 27 1 plaintiff’s name. The building was bought out with revenue source of the plaintiff’s. Hence, [a] 2 fraudulent scheme was used to absorb a monopoly with unfair practices.” (Id. at 4.) “The 3 defendant is auctioning and/or has real and personal property that is of economic and reserved 4 intellectual property of the plaintiff.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants used false statements 5 and “[f]ictitious banking operations.” (Id.) 6 Liberally construed, the complaint asserts claims for conversion of real property, 7 conversion of personal property, and fraud. (Id. at 1, 4.) Plaintiff seeks “[p]roperty and deed/title 8 to 39-49 El Camino Real,” valued at $3,412,944, as well as antiques and other personal property 9 valued at $35,000. (Id. at 4.) 10 LEGAL STANDARD 11 A court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint before service of process if it is 12 frivolous, fails to state a claim, or contains a complete defense to the action on its face. 28 U.S.C. 13 § 1915(e)(2). Section 1915(e)(2) parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14 12(b)(6) regarding dismissals for failure to state a claim. See id.; see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 15 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2000). The complaint therefore must allege facts that plausibly 16 establish each defendant’s liability. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555–57 (2007). 17 “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to 18 draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. 19 Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 20 A complaint must also comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires the 21 complaint to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled 22 to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); see also Moss v. Infinity Ins. Co., No. 15-CV-03456-JSC, 2015 23 WL 5360294, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2015). “While the federal rules require brevity in 24 pleading, a complaint nevertheless must be sufficient to give the defendants ‘fair notice’ of the 25 claim and the ‘grounds upon which it rests.’” Coleman v. Beard, No. 14-CV-05508-YGR (PR), 26 2015 WL 395662, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2015) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 27 (2007)). A complaint that fails to state a defendant’s specific acts “that violated the plaintiff’s 1 00307-YGR (PR), 2020 WL 4284825, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2020) (citing Hutchinson v. 2 United States, 677 F.2d 1322, 1328 n.5 (9th Cir. 1982)). 3 Plaintiff is proceeding without representation by a lawyer. While the Court must construe 4 the complaint liberally, see Garaux v. Pulley, 739 F.2d 437, 439 (9th Cir. 1984), it may not add to 5 the factual allegations in the complaint, see Pena v. Gardner, 976 F.2d 469, 471 (9th Cir. 1992). 6 Litigants unrepresented by a lawyer remain bound by the Federal Rules and Local Rules of this 7 District. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 3-9(a). 8 DISCUSSION 9 The complaint does not establish a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction (federal 10 question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction). See Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94 (2010) 11 (“Courts have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists . . 12 . .”). Federal question jurisdiction “exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of 13 the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Wayne v. DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 14 1183 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). No federal question appears 15 on the face of Plaintiff’s complaint, which recites state law claims including conversion of real 16 property, conversion of personal property, and fraud.2 Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 17 392 (1987); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1331. As to diversity jurisdiction, while the complaint pleads an 18 amount in controversy that exceeds the amount required for diversity jurisdiction, it does not 19 indicate complete diversity of citizenship between the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). 20 Plaintiff and all Defendants are residents of California, thus defeating the complete diversity of 21 citizenship required for the Court to exercise diversity jurisdiction. 22 Additionally, the complaint does not comply with Rule 8 because it does not identify the 23 grounds upon which Plaintiff’s claims rest.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ROBERT LINDBLAD, Case No. 21-cv-07548-JSC
8 Plaintiff, SCREENING ORDER PURSUANT TO 9 v. 28 U.S.C. § 1915
10 HAN LIN AUCTION GALLERY, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 1 Defendants. 11
12 13 The Court previously granted Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (Dkt. 14 No. 4.)1 It must now review the complaint’s allegations under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Because 15 Plaintiff’s claims do not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, the Court gives Plaintiff 16 the opportunity to amend the complaint. 17 COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS 18 The complaint alleges a real estate dispute over property located at 39-49 El Camino Real 19 in Millbrae, California. (Dkt. No. 1 at 4.) Plaintiff is a resident of San Francisco. He names four 20 Defendant entities: Han Lin Auction Gallery, located at 39 El Camino Real; Chien Lung Antiques, 21 located at the same address; Han Lin Auction Gallery, located at a different address of 66 21st 22 Avenue in San Mateo, California; and Think Tank Learning, located at 19925 Stevens Creek 23 Boulevard #168 in Cupertino, California. (Id. at 2.) According to Plaintiff, all Defendants are 24 organized under the laws of California and have their principal place of business here. (Id. at 3.) 25 Plaintiff alleges that the property, “a former film festival building,” “has been converted to 26 proprietor-oriented business establishments with representation of items sold in the legend of the 27 1 plaintiff’s name. The building was bought out with revenue source of the plaintiff’s. Hence, [a] 2 fraudulent scheme was used to absorb a monopoly with unfair practices.” (Id. at 4.) “The 3 defendant is auctioning and/or has real and personal property that is of economic and reserved 4 intellectual property of the plaintiff.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants used false statements 5 and “[f]ictitious banking operations.” (Id.) 6 Liberally construed, the complaint asserts claims for conversion of real property, 7 conversion of personal property, and fraud. (Id. at 1, 4.) Plaintiff seeks “[p]roperty and deed/title 8 to 39-49 El Camino Real,” valued at $3,412,944, as well as antiques and other personal property 9 valued at $35,000. (Id. at 4.) 10 LEGAL STANDARD 11 A court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint before service of process if it is 12 frivolous, fails to state a claim, or contains a complete defense to the action on its face. 28 U.S.C. 13 § 1915(e)(2). Section 1915(e)(2) parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14 12(b)(6) regarding dismissals for failure to state a claim. See id.; see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 15 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2000). The complaint therefore must allege facts that plausibly 16 establish each defendant’s liability. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555–57 (2007). 17 “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to 18 draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. 19 Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 20 A complaint must also comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires the 21 complaint to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled 22 to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); see also Moss v. Infinity Ins. Co., No. 15-CV-03456-JSC, 2015 23 WL 5360294, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2015). “While the federal rules require brevity in 24 pleading, a complaint nevertheless must be sufficient to give the defendants ‘fair notice’ of the 25 claim and the ‘grounds upon which it rests.’” Coleman v. Beard, No. 14-CV-05508-YGR (PR), 26 2015 WL 395662, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2015) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 27 (2007)). A complaint that fails to state a defendant’s specific acts “that violated the plaintiff’s 1 00307-YGR (PR), 2020 WL 4284825, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2020) (citing Hutchinson v. 2 United States, 677 F.2d 1322, 1328 n.5 (9th Cir. 1982)). 3 Plaintiff is proceeding without representation by a lawyer. While the Court must construe 4 the complaint liberally, see Garaux v. Pulley, 739 F.2d 437, 439 (9th Cir. 1984), it may not add to 5 the factual allegations in the complaint, see Pena v. Gardner, 976 F.2d 469, 471 (9th Cir. 1992). 6 Litigants unrepresented by a lawyer remain bound by the Federal Rules and Local Rules of this 7 District. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 3-9(a). 8 DISCUSSION 9 The complaint does not establish a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction (federal 10 question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction). See Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94 (2010) 11 (“Courts have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists . . 12 . .”). Federal question jurisdiction “exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of 13 the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Wayne v. DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 14 1183 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). No federal question appears 15 on the face of Plaintiff’s complaint, which recites state law claims including conversion of real 16 property, conversion of personal property, and fraud.2 Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 17 392 (1987); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1331. As to diversity jurisdiction, while the complaint pleads an 18 amount in controversy that exceeds the amount required for diversity jurisdiction, it does not 19 indicate complete diversity of citizenship between the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). 20 Plaintiff and all Defendants are residents of California, thus defeating the complete diversity of 21 citizenship required for the Court to exercise diversity jurisdiction. 22 Additionally, the complaint does not comply with Rule 8 because it does not identify the 23 grounds upon which Plaintiff’s claims rest. The complaint alleges conversion and fraud, but does 24 2 Plaintiff identifies the following as a federal question: “If a real estate property-grab occurs by 25 the fortune of monetary assets destined for the plaintiff are misdirected into the hands of political and/or cultural rivals through hostile and unlawful takeover of the plaintiff’s obligated assets, is all 26 the property to be forf[ei]ted to the plaintiff with other remedies in the suit presented hereunto?” (Dkt. No. 1 at 5.) That is not a proper federal question because it does not show that “federal law 27 creates the cause of action or that [Plaintiff’s] right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a 1 not explain the specific conduct of each Defendant in relation to the property at issue or explain 2 || what specific actions they took to defraud Plaintiff. Thus, the complaint does not provide 3 || Defendants with fair notice of Plaintiff's claims and the grounds upon which they rest. 4 CONCLUSION 5 For the reasons explained above, the complaint as pleaded does not establish federal 6 subject matter jurisdiction and does not comply with Rule 8. If Plaintiff believes he can cure the 7 deficiencies, or at least some of the deficiencies, the Court has identified he may file an amended 8 complaint on or before November 29, 2021. If he chooses to amend, Plaintiff should: set forth the 9 || complaint’s allegations in separate numbered paragraphs; set forth each claim in a separate 10 || numbered paragraph; and identify each factual allegation that supports each claim for relief. 11 Additionally, Plaintiff is informed that the Court cannot refer to prior pleadings in order to make 12 an amended complaint complete. The amended complaint must be complete in itself because it 13 replaces the previously filed complaints. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 14 1992). Finally, Plaintiff is warned that failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil 3 15 Procedure, the Local Rules, or any court order could result in a report and recommendation that a 16 || his complaint be dismissed. Similarly, failure to file an amended complaint that cures the above- 3 17 identified deficiencies could also lead to a report and recommendation that his complaint be 18 || dismissed. 19 The Court encourages Plaintiff to seek free assistance from the Northern District’s Legal 20 Help Center, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 15th Floor, Room 2796, San Francisco, CA 94102. 21 Plaintiff should make a telephone appointment by calling (415) 782-8982. The website for the 22 || Northern District of California also has information for litigants who are not represented by 23 counsel. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: October 25, 2021 26 Dogue Suto JA@QUELINE SCOTT CORZEY 28 United States Magistrate Judge