Wilson v. Ridgeway

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7 MICHAEL GEARY WILSON, Case No. 20-cv-00381-PJH 8 Plaintiff,

9 v. ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER

10 KARL CURTIS ROGER RIDGEWAY, et Re: Dkt. No. 23 al., 11 Defendants. 12

13 14 The court is in receipt of defendants’ filing, which they style as “The Defendant’s 15 Answer to the Complaint.” Dkt. 23. In it, they argue that the “Court does not have proper 16 jurisdiction over the defendants, as we are citizens of South Carolina.” Id. ¶ 7 (emphasis 17 omitted). Defendants also state that they “motion [sic] that the third and only claim be 18 dismissed with prejudice.” Id. ¶ 12. The court construes this filing as a motion to dismiss 19 plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), Dkt. 7, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 20 Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction. 21 In response to defendants’ answer, plaintiff Wilson has filed an opposition in which 22 he raises various procedural objections based on, for example, the fact that defendants 23 label their filing an answer but also purport to move to dismiss the only remaining claim. 24 Dkt. 25. Defendants, like plaintiff, are proceeding pro se and the court has an obligation 25 to “construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010); 26 see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e) (“Pleadings must be construed so as to do justice.”); 27 Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam) (“A document filed pro se is ‘to 1 to less stringent standards that formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” (citations omitted)). 2 Therefore, the court will permit plaintiff an opportunity to respond to the merits of 3 defendants’ motion, that is, whether the court has personal jurisdiction over the 4 defendants. In fact, the court previously issued an order that granted plaintiff’s motion to 5 proceed in forma pauperis and, as part of that order, the court noted it was not clear 6 whether it has either subject matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction in this case. Dkt. 7 13 at 13 n.2. 8 As part of his opposition to defendants’ motion, plaintiff should also address 9 whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case. “Courts have an 10 independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even when 11 no party challenges it.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94 (2010). Federal courts are 12 presumed to lack subject matter jurisdiction, and the plaintiff bears the burden of 13 establishing that subject matter jurisdiction is proper. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. 14 Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). If the court determines that it lacks subject matter 15 jurisdiction, then the action must be dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 16 Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over cases where the amount in 17 controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and where the matter in 18 controversy is between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). 19 It is evident from the FAC and the answer, Dkt. 23, that plaintiff—a California 20 citizen—and defendants—South Carolina citizens—are citizens of different states. 21 However, it is not evident from the FAC that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 22 Of course, plaintiff alleges that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. FAC ¶ 6. 23 However, only plaintiff’s third claim for intentional interference with contractual relations 24 remains after the court dismissed plaintiff’s other claims. Dkt. 13 at 7. In his third claim, 25 plaintiff alleges that his sister Samantha promised him compensation for his services and 26 reimbursement for the expense plaintiff incurred while providing services in connection 27 with her power of attorney. FAC ¶ 92. He further alleges that he has not been paid for 1 clear that this sum exceeds the $75,000 threshold. Plaintiff must demonstrate that the 2 amount in controversy exceeds that threshold. 3 In light of the foregoing, the court ORDERS plaintiff to file an opposition to 4 defendants’ motion to dismiss on or before January 5, 2021 and defendants may file a 5 reply in support of their motion on or before January 19, 2021. The court will then deem 6 the matter submitted on the papers. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: December 22, 2020 9 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27