Sobayo v. Ally Bank

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: January 4, 2021
• Docket: 3:20-cv-08470
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 NATHANIEL BASOLA SOBAYO, Case No. 20-cv-08470-SI

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IFP AND 9 v. DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE 10 ALLY BANK, et al., Dkt. No. 2, 8 11 Defendants.

12 13 On November 25, 2020, plaintiff filed the instant action seeking damages from defendants 14 who allegedly stole or wrongfully repossessed plaintiff’s 2011 black Cadillac Escalade. Dkt. No. 1 15 at 31. Plaintiff alleges he is entitled to $100,000 in compensatory damages and $10,000,000 in 16 punitive damages. Dkt. No. 1 at 5. Plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma 17 pauperis. Dkt. No. 2. Plaintiff is not currently employed, though he does receive social security and 18 is eligible for COVID-19 relief. Id. However, these amounts barely cover plaintiff’s monthly rent 19 and other living expenses. The Court therefore GRANTS plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma 20 pauperis. 21 However, in an action in which a plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, a district court 22 may screen the complaint to fulfill its duty under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires the 23 court to dismiss a case if the court determines that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state 24 a claim, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. Pro se 25 pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 26 (9th Cir. 1990). 27 1 Plaintiff's complaint fails to state any causes of action. Further, the complaint fails to 2 || establish subject matter jurisdiction. Generally, a federal district court will have subject matter 3 || jurisdiction two instances: (1) cases involving federal subject matter (causes of action brought under 4 || federal law) or (2) diversity matters where the plaintiff and all defendants are citizens of different 5 states. See 28 U.S.C. $$ 1331 (Federal Question Jurisdiction) and 1332 (Diversity of Citizenship). 6 || The plaintiff and at least some defendants appear to be California residents. Further, while plaintiff 7 does not explicitly state causes of action, the allegations regarding “conversion” of □□□□□□□□□□□ 8 Cadillac should be brought under California state law. Therefore, plaintiff has not established 9 subject matter jurisdiction under $1331 (Federal Question Jurisdiction) or $1332 (Diversity of 10 || Citizenship). 11 For these reasons, the Court hereby DISMISSES the complaint WITHOUT prejudice. 12 || Plaintiff may file an amended complaint addressing the issues of (1) failure to state causes of action 5 13 and (2) jurisdiction on or before February 1, 2020. If an amended complaint is not filed, the action 14 || will be dismissed WITH prejudice. 3 15 Further, the motion to dismiss filed by defendants is hereby taken off calendar as MOOT. a 16 See Dkt. No. 8 (motion to dismiss).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 || Dated: January 4, 2021 Site WU tee 20 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28