Watters v. Parviz

W.D. Washington

Watters v. Parviz

DecidedMay 24, 2023

Docket2:23-cv-00755

StatusUnknown

This text of Watters v. Parviz (Watters v. Parviz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Watters v. Parviz, (W.D. Wash. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE 7 ANDREW G. WATTERS, Cause No. C23-0755RSL 8 Plaintiff, 9 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 10 MAHSA PARVIZ, 11 Defendant. 12 13 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On May 19, 2023, plaintiff filed a 14 complaint in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Dkt. # 1. Although the complaint states 15 that plaintiff has suffered “not less than $75,001.00” in special damages, the allegation is wholly 16 conclusory and not supported by any facts. At most, plaintiff alleges that he was defrauded out 17 of approximately $10,000.00. Other allegedly wrongful acts, such as defendant’s use of a 18 Harvard email address and her attempt to relitigate a custody determination in Texas, are not 19 20 alleged to have caused plaintiff any injury. To the extent plaintiff alleges that defendant violated 21 various California state criminal laws, private persons generally do not have standing to pursue 22 criminal prosecutions. See, e.g., Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973). 23 Because federal courts have limited jurisdiction, “[a] federal court is presumed to lack 24 jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” Stock W., Inc. v. 25 26 Confederated Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989). Plaintiff has the burden of alleging 27 1 facts sufficient to establish the Court’s jurisdiction. He has not done so. In the absence of facts 2 that could provide an adequate basis for the Court to find that the jurisdictional amount is 3 satisfied, a conclusory assertion that plaintiff has suffered special damages of $75,001.00 is 4 insufficient. 5 6 7 Plaintiff is hereby ordered to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed for 8 having failed to “provide evidence establishing that it is more likely than not that the amount in 9 controversy exceeds” $75,000. Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 10 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff’s response, if any, is due on or before 11 Wednesday, June 7, 2023. The Clerk of Court is directed to note this Order to Show Cause on 12 the Court’s calendar for Friday, June 9, 2023. 13 14 Dated this 24th day of May, 2023. 15 16 Robert S. Lasnik 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE 7 ANDREW G. WATTERS, Cause No. C23-0755RSL 8 Plaintiff, 9 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 10 MAHSA PARVIZ, 11 Defendant. 12 13 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On May 19, 2023, plaintiff filed a 14 complaint in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Dkt. # 1. Although the complaint states 15 that plaintiff has suffered “not less than $75,001.00” in special damages, the allegation is wholly 16 conclusory and not supported by any facts. At most, plaintiff alleges that he was defrauded out 17 of approximately $10,000.00. Other allegedly wrongful acts, such as defendant’s use of a 18 Harvard email address and her attempt to relitigate a custody determination in Texas, are not 19 20 alleged to have caused plaintiff any injury. To the extent plaintiff alleges that defendant violated 21 various California state criminal laws, private persons generally do not have standing to pursue 22 criminal prosecutions. See, e.g., Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973). 23 Because federal courts have limited jurisdiction, “[a] federal court is presumed to lack 24 jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” Stock W., Inc. v. 25 26 Confederated Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989). Plaintiff has the burden of alleging 27 1 facts sufficient to establish the Court’s jurisdiction. He has not done so. In the absence of facts 2 that could provide an adequate basis for the Court to find that the jurisdictional amount is 3 satisfied, a conclusory assertion that plaintiff has suffered special damages of $75,001.00 is 4 insufficient. 5 6 7 Plaintiff is hereby ordered to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed for 8 having failed to “provide evidence establishing that it is more likely than not that the amount in 9 controversy exceeds” $75,000. Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 10 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff’s response, if any, is due on or before 11 Wednesday, June 7, 2023. The Clerk of Court is directed to note this Order to Show Cause on 12 the Court’s calendar for Friday, June 9, 2023. 13 14 Dated this 24th day of May, 2023. 15 16 Robert S. Lasnik 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Watters v. Parviz, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watters-v-parviz-wawd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack