Moen v. Moen

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: September 15, 2023
• Docket: 4:23-cv-00444
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CARLOS DAVID MOEN, Case No. 23-cv-00444-DMR

8 Plaintiff, ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION 9 v. TO DISMISS

10 MARTHA MOEN, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 13 11 Defendants.

12 Defendants Martha Moen and Rebecca Verdier move to dismiss self-represented Plaintiff 13 Carlos David Moen’s complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of 14 subject matter jurisdiction. [Docket No. 13.] This matter is suitable for resolution without a 15 hearing. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). For the following reasons, the motion is granted. Plaintiff’s complaint 16 is dismissed with prejudice. 17 I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 18 Plaintiff filed the complaint on January 31, 2023. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants “are 19 trustees to the estate of Earle and Olga Moen,” and that the “restatement trust” provides that “the 2 20 trustees and 1 beneficiary (Carlos Moen) are to be paid 1/3 equal share of the assets.” Compl. 4. 21 He further alleges that Defendants have received “their final distribution but have not made equal 22 payment” to Plaintiff. Id. Based on these allegations, Plaintiff alleges a single claim for breach of 23 contract. See id. at 1, 4. According to Plaintiff, Defendants owe him $30,719.99, plus attorneys’ 24 fees of $11,917.00 and $32,500.01 in punitive damages, as well as a .45 automatic Colt pistol and 25 “1st edition Jack London books.” Id. He avers that this case fulfills the diversity jurisdiction 26 requirements under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See id. at 1-3. 27 Defendants Moen and Verdier filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject 1 the court issued an Order to Show Cause, ordering Plaintiff to explain the failure to respond to the 2 motion and file either an opposition to the motion or a statement of non-opposition. [Docket No. 3 17 (Order to Show Cause, “OSC”).] Plaintiff filed a timely response to the OSC as well as an 4 opposition to the motion to dismiss. [Docket Nos. 18, 19.] He later filed a second opposition to 5 the motion. [Docket No. 20.] 6 II. LEGAL STANDARD 7 A motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) is a challenge to the court’s subject 8 matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). A court will dismiss a party’s claim for lack of 9 subject matter jurisdiction “only when the claim is so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by 10 prior decisions of th[e Supreme] Court, or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve 11 a federal controversy.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998) (citation 12 and quotation marks omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). The challenging party may make a 13 facial or factual attack challenging subject matter jurisdiction. White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 14 (9th Cir. 2000). In this case, Defendants make a facial challenge to subject matter jurisdiction. 15 See generally Mot. to Dismiss. A facial challenge asserts that “the allegations contained in a 16 complaint are insufficient on their face to invoke federal jurisdiction.” Safe Air for Everyone, 373 17 F.3d at 1039. 18 III. DISCUSSION 19 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and a “federal court is presumed to lack 20 jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” Stock W., Inc. v. 21 Confederated Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted). A federal court 22 may exercise either federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. 23 Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 requires a civil action to arise under 24 the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. “[T]he presence or absence of federal- 25 question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal 26 jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly 27 pleaded complaint.” Rivet v. Regions Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998) (quoting Caterpillar, 1 breach of contract, which arises under state law. Therefore, federal question jurisdiction does not 2 || exist here. 3 A district court has diversity jurisdiction where the parties are diverse and “the matter in 4 controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs.” 28 U.S.C. § 5 1332. Parties are diverse only when the parties are “citizens of different states.” Id. The Supreme 6 || Court has interpreted section 1332(a) to require “complete diversity of citizenship”—that is, each 7 || plaintiff must be a citizen of a different state than each defendant. Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 8 U.S. 61, 68 (1996). Here, Plaintiff alleges that he is a California citizen and that Defendants are 9 California citizens. Compl. 3. Accordingly, as the parties are not citizens of different states, the 10 || requirements of diversity jurisdiction are not satisfied. The court lacks jurisdiction over this 11 action. 12 Neither of Plaintiffs opposition briefs address subject matter jurisdiction or explain how 5 13 this case belongs in federal court. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is granted and the complaint 14 || is dismissed with prejudice. 15 || Iv. CONCLUSION 16 For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted and the complaint is 3 17 dismissed with prejudice. The OSC is discharged. The Clerk shall close the file. 18 DISTRISS 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. ye 20 Dated: September 15, 2023 hs ORD FRED 21 [\ TSO ONE | 18 8O □ Doy . — 22 “4 □□□ □ Zz 23 3 yodse do □□□ > KE 25 DISTRICS © 26 27 28