Williams v. Sterling BMW

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: November 29, 2022
• Docket: 4:22-cv-06648
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 BARTHOLOMEW WILLIAMS, Case No. 22-cv-06648-DMR

9 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: 10 v. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

11 STERLING BMW, et al., 12 Defendants.

13 Self-represented Plaintiff Bartholomew Williams filed a complaint and an application to 14 proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). [Docket Nos. 1, 4.] The complaint alleges claims related to 15 Plaintiff’s 2019 purchase of a certified used vehicle from Defendant Sterling BMW. Plaintiff 16 appears to assert claims for fraud and misrepresentation against Defendants Sterling BMW, BMW 17 of North America, and Mercedes Benz. 18 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and a “federal court is presumed to lack 19 jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” Stock W., Inc. v. 20 Confederated Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted). A federal court 21 may exercise either federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff avers that this 22 case “belongs in federal court . . . under diversity jurisdiction.” Compl. 2. A district court has 23 diversity jurisdiction where the parties are diverse and “the matter in controversy exceeds the sum 24 or value of $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Parties are diverse only 25 when the parties are “citizens of different states.” Id. A corporation is considered a citizen of both 26 the state in which it is incorporated and the state where it has its principal place of business. Id. 27 In this case, it is not clear that all parties are diverse. A natural person’s state of citizenship 1 Cir. 2001). “A person’s domicile is her permanent home, where she resides with the intention to 2 remain or to which she intends to return.” Id. However, “[a] person residing in a given state is not 3 necessarily domiciled there, and thus is not necessarily a citizen of that state.” Id. (internal 4 citation omitted). Plaintiff’s mailing address is in California, but the complaint does not allege his 5 state of citizenship or his domicile. Plaintiff also does not allege facts regarding the citizenship of 6 any of the three Defendants. Notably, the complaint alleges that Defendant Sterling BMW is 7 located in Newport Beach, California. It also lists a California address for Defendant BMW of 8 North America. Compl. 1-3. Accordingly, the complaint does not allege facts supporting 9 Plaintiff’s claim that the parties are diverse. 10 The court also lacks federal question jurisdiction over this action. Federal question 11 jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 requires a civil action to arise under the constitution, laws, or 12 treaties of the United States. “[T]he presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is 13 governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only 14 when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” 15 Rivet v. Regions Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998) (quoting Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 16 U.S. 386, 392 (1987)). Plaintiff’s complaint mentions two federal statutes in passing, 18 U.S.C. § 17 1001 and 18 U.S.C. § 371, see Compl. 5, 6, but neither confers federal question jurisdiction. 18 18 U.S.C. § 1001 is a criminal statute providing in relevant part that a person “within the jurisdiction 19 of” any department or agency of the United States who makes false or fraudulent statements shall 20 be fined or imprisoned. 18 U.S.C. § 371 is a criminal statute that penalizes conspiracy to “commit 21 any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States” or its agencies. There is no 22 private right of action under either statute. Williams v. McCausland, 791 F. Supp. 992, 1001 23 (S.D.N.Y. 1992); Rockefeller v. U.S. Ct. of Appeals Off., for Tenth Cir. Judges, 248 F. Supp. 2d 24 17, 23 (D.D.C. 2003). As it is not clear that the court has jurisdiction over this action, by no later than December 25 21, 2022 Plaintiff shall explain in writing why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject 26 matter jurisdiction. If Plaintiff fails to respond by that date or his response fails to establish a basis 27 1 dismissal of the case. 2 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: November 29, 2022 5 DONNA M. RYU 6 United States Magistrate Judge 4 8 9 10 ll a 12

A 16

17 6 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28