Sims v. Krammer

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: August 31, 2022
• Docket: 2:22-cv-01217
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 SHANNA SIMS, 9 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2:22-cv-1217-JCC 10 v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL 11 DANIEL KRAMMER and SAMANTHA STEVEN, 12 Defendant. 13 Before the Court is a complaint submitted by Plaintiff Shanna Sims. For the reasons 14 below, the Court DISMISSES the complaint. 15 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. The Court may sua sponte raise the issue 16 of subject matter jurisdiction at any time during an action. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hughes, 358 F.3d 17 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 2004); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). After careful review of Plaintiff's 18 complaint, (Dkt. No. 3), the Court concludes this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and the 19 case should be dismissed. The complaint alleges Plaintiff, a resident of Sultan, Snohomish 20 County, Washington, sues Daniel Krammer and Samantha Steven who are also residents of 21 Sultan. The complaint alleges the basis for federal court jurisdiction is "Federal Question." (Dkt. 22 No. 3 at 3.) In support, the complaint avers the following statutes are at issue in the case: 23 RCW 64.90.245 Declarant Declaration RCW 58.17.020 Plat Map Defendants did not have property surveyed. RCW 64.90 1 Washington Uniform Common Interest Ownership. RCW 64.04.020 Requisites of a Deed, RCW 64.06020 Disclosure 2 Statement. RCW 9A.72.020 Perjury. All homeowners at Daisy Landing are governed by the CCRS which are noted in each deed. 3 The defendants are in violation of not following the CCRS. 4 Id. at 3–4. The complaint alleges Defendants violated these state statutes in a real property 5 dispute by taking down a fence without approval and building a retaining wall that protrudes 6 onto Plaintiff's property. (Dkt. No. 3 at 5.) Defendants thereafter allegedly harassed Plaintiff by 7 obtaining a state No Contact Order and slandering Plaintiff's name in the Daisy Landing 8 community in Sultan, Washington where the parties live. Id. 9 These allegations establish this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Subject-matter 10 jurisdiction refers to the Court's power to hear a case. Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive 11 Eng'rs & Trainmen Gen. Comm. of Adjustment, 558 U.S. 67, 81 (2009). “Federal courts are 12 courts of limited jurisdiction.” Richardson v. United States, 943 F.2d 1107, 1108 (9th Cir. 1991). 13 “The jurisdiction of district courts and the courts of appeals are limited by the Constitution and 14 those subjects encompassed within a statutory grant of jurisdiction.” Id. Federal courts have 15 “jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United 16 States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Federal courts also have jurisdiction in civil actions where the matter 17 in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the action, “is between citizens of different States.” 28 18 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, 19 the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(h)(3). “It has long been held that a judge 20 can dismiss sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction.” Cat Diversified Promotions, Inc. v. Musick, 505 21 F.2d 278, 280 (9th Cir. 1974). 22 Plaintiff “bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction.” See, e.g., Robinson 23 v. United States, 586 F.3d 683, 685 (9th Cir. 2009); Ashoff v. City of Ukiah, 130 F.3d 409, 410 1 (9th Cir. 1997). Plaintiff has not met this burden. First, the complaint alleges the Court has 2 subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff's claims raise a federal question. However, the basis 3 of Plaintiff's claim is that the Defendants violated state law and covenants governing the Daisy 4 Landing Community in Sultan, Washington. Neither suggest a federal constitutional or statutory

5 violation. Nor is diversity jurisdiction alleged (a property dispute between persons living in the 6 same neighborhood clearly establishes that the parties are not diverse). 7 In sum, the Court has carefully reviewed the proposed complaint and concludes this 8 Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and the matter should be dismissed. The Court also finds 9 that granting Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint would be futile. See Barahona v. Union Pac. 10 R.R. Co., 881 F.3d 1122, 1134 (9th Cir. 2018). The complaint alleges state law violations 11 between neighbors over a fence, violations of a state No Contact Order, and state-law tortious 12 conduct; no amendment would alter the fact that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction 13 claims arising from such conduct. 14 The Court accordingly ORDERS:

15 (1) The complaint, (Dkt. No. 3), is DISMISSED. 16 (2) The Clerk shall provide a copy of this order to Plaintiff. 17 DATED this 31st day of August 2022. 18 A 19

20 John C. Coughenour 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22 23