Morris v. Melling

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: October 17, 2023
• Docket: 4:23-cv-05108
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Oct 17, 2023 1

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 3 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 4 ALEXA PAULINE MORRIS and No. 4:23-CV-05108-ACE 5 KRISTOPHER LOREN MORTON, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 6 Plaintiffs, MOTION TO DISMISS 7 8 v.

9 JOSHUA MELLING, ROGELIO ECF No. 7 10 NUNEZ, and ALPHA HOMES AND DEVELOPMENT CORP., 11

12 Defendants.

13 14 BEFORE THE COURT is Defendants’ August 24, 2023 Motion to 15 Dismiss, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b), for lack of federal 16 jurisdiction. ECF No. 7. Plaintiffs have filed no response or otherwise challenged 17 Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The motion was noted for hearing, without oral 18 argument, on October 16, 2023. 19 STANDARD OF REVIEW 20 Federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They have no 21 jurisdiction without specific constitutional or statutory authorization. Exxon Mobil 22 Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., 545 U.S. 546, 552 (2005). A party invoking the federal 23 court’s jurisdiction has the burden of proving that subject matter jurisdiction exists. 24 Thompson v. McCombe, 99 F.3d 352, 353 (9th Cir. 1996); Thornhill Publ’g Co., 25 Inc. v. Gen. Tel. & Elecs. Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1979). 26 Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred on federal courts either through 27 diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 or through federal question 28 jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Peralta v. Hispanic Bus., Inc., 419 F.3d 1 1064, 1068 (9th Cir. 2005). Diversity jurisdiction exists when there is complete 2 diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds 3 $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996). 4 Federal question jurisdiction exists when plaintiff properly invokes a “colorable 5 claim arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States.” Arbaugh v. Y & 6 H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). 7 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), a case must be 8 dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when the Court lacks a 9 constitutional or statutory basis to adjudicate the controversy. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10 12(b)(1); Leeson v. Transamerica Disability Income Plan, 671 F.3d 969, 975 (9th 11 Cir. 2012). 12 ANALYSIS 13 Since Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se, the Court has construed the 14 Complaint liberally. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). 15 I. Diversity Jurisdiction 16 The basis of diversity jurisdiction is found at Title 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 17 Section 1332(a)(1) states that “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction 18 of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of 19 $75,000 . . . and is between citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). 20 Section 1332(a) requires complete diversity. Id. “In a case with multiple plaintiffs 21 and multiple defendants, the presence in the action of a single plaintiff from the 22 same State as a single defendant deprives the district court of original diversity 23 jurisdiction over the entire action.” Exxon Mobil Corp., 545 U.S. at 553. 24 The Complaint indicates that Plaintiff Morris lives in Benton City, 25 Washington. ECF No. 1 at 2. No address has been provided for Plaintiff Morton. 26 The addresses provided for Defendants Melling, Nunez, and Alpha Homes are all 27 in the state of Washington. ECF No. 1 at 2-3. Therefore, the Complaint fails to 28 establish that all Plaintiffs are of different state citizenship than all Defendants. 1 Because this matter is not between “citizens of different States,” the Court 2 lacks subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 3 1332(a). See Caterpillar, 519 U.S. at 68. 4 II. Federal Question Jurisdiction 5 Federal question jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, exists when a 6 plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint establishes either (1) that federal law creates the 7 cause of action or (2) that a state law claim “necessarily raises a stated federal 8 issue, actually disputed and substantial, which a federal forum may entertain 9 without disturbing any congressionally-approved balance of federal and state 10 judicial responsibilities.” Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 11 582 F.3d 1083, 1086-1087 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Grable & Sons Metal Prod., 12 Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 314 (2005)). 13 Here, although Plaintiffs checked a box indicated “Federal Question” as a 14 basis for jurisdiction in their case, the Complaint lists the following claims for 15 relief: violation of residential building/remodeling/renovation codes; faulty and 16 defective construction; and violation of electrical codes. ECF No. 1 at 3. 17 Consequently, even viewed in a generous light, Plaintiffs have not pled a colorable 18 claim arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. 19 Plaintiffs’ claims do not involve a federal question of law and thus do not 20 provide the Court with subject matter jurisdiction. 21 CONCLUSION 22 Based on the foregoing, the Court finds it lacks subject matter jurisdiction 23 over this action. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 24 1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 7, is GRANTED. 25 2. Plaintiffs’ Complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED WITH 26 PREJUDICE for lack of federal jurisdiction. 27 /// 28 /// 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to file this 2|| Order, provide a copy to Plaintiffs and counsel for Defendants, and CLOSE THE 3 || FILE. 4 DATED October 17, 2023.

° ade ALEXANDER C. EKSTROM = UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28