Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02053/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02053-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 42:1475 Declaratory &amp; Injunctive Relief - Foreclosure Procedures

---

1

16-CV-2053-JLS (NLS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PERLITA NEWMAN, and GEORGE 

NEWMAN,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC. et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 16-CV-2053-JLS (NLS)

ORDER: (1) DENYING REQUEST 

TO REOPEN CASE; (2) GRANTING 

LEAVE TO FILE SECOND 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

(ECF No. 13)

On September 30, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis, screened the Complaint, and dismissed the Complaint without prejudice. (ECF 

No. 3.) The Court found that Plaintiffs’ Complaint failed to state a legal claim upon which 

relief could be granted because it had only conclusory assertions stating that Defendant 

Caliber Home Loans “violated Plaintiffs’ rights under the Constitution and federal and state 

law governing real estate foreclosures.” (Id. at 4.) The Court also found that Plaintiffs had 

not proven that this Court had subject matter jurisdiction over the action. (Id. at 5.) 

Plaintiffs then filed an Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 5.)1

 

1 Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint lists two Defendants: Caliber Home Loans and Quality Loan Service 

Corporation. Plaintiffs then filed a form titled “Proof of Service by First-Class Mail.” (ECF No. 5.) The 

form Plaintiffs filed was created for the Superior Court of California. Plaintiffs crossed out “Superior 

Case 3:16-cv-02053-JLS-WVG Document 15 Filed 05/10/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

16-CV-2053-JLS (NLS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

On April 9, 2018, the Court closed this case for failure to prosecute pursuant to Civil 

Local Rule 41.1. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiffs have filed a request that the dismissal be set 

aside and the case be reopened. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiffs state Defendant has never 

responded to the Complaint and requests the Court enter orders against Defendant and 

award damages to Plaintiffs. (Id. at 2.)

In reviewing Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, the Court finds it must again 

dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. Plaintiffs state Defendant lacks standing to sell or foreclose 

on Plaintiffs’ property and is violating Plaintiffs’ right to quiet enjoyment of their property. 

(ECF No. 5, at 5, 7, 10.). Plaintiffs state Defendants engaged in “fraudulent foreclosures” 

which is a felony under the California Penal Code. (Id. at 10, 13–14.) Plaintiffs state 

Defendants are violating Federal and “California Department of Real Estate laws.” (Id. at 

16.) Plaintiffs’ first cause of action is for “fraud” and is based on Defendants’ alleged 

misrepresentation and filing false documents. (Id. at 19.) Plaintiffs’ second cause of action 

is for “violations of federal, and California state laws regarding real property foreclosures.” 

It appears the laws Plaintiffs refer to for this cause of action are “US Code Chapter 47, 

# 1021, and the California Penal Code, Section 115.5.” (Id. at 20.) Plaintiffs’ third cause 

of action is financial elder abuse under “California Welfare and Institutions Code, Article 

15610.3-.70.” (Id. at 19–20.)

It is still unclear to the Court whether subject matter jurisdiction exists over 

Plaintiffs’ action. Additionally, Plaintiffs have not proven or even alleged that the Court 

has personal jurisdiction over Defendants. The Court refers Plaintiffs’ to page 5 of the 

Court’s prior order (docket number 3) wherein the Court laid out the bases for subject 

 

Court of California” and wrote in “US District Court.” The form also clearly states: “Do not use this Proof 

of Service to show service of a Summons and Complaint.” This proof of service is therefore inadequate. 

However, as detailed below, the Court permits Plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint. Because 

Plaintiffs have been granted permission to proceed IFP, the Court will order the United States Marshals 

to serve the complaint if it passes the Court’s screening. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (the court must review 

an action filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of § 1915 and rule on its own motion to dismiss before 

directing the Marshal to effect service pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3)).

Case 3:16-cv-02053-JLS-WVG Document 15 Filed 05/10/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

16-CV-2053-JLS (NLS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

matter jurisdiction: diversity jurisdiction and federal question jurisdiction. The Court 

found Plaintiffs had not proven that either basis for subject matter jurisdiction existed. 

(ECF No. 3, at 5.) The First Amended Complaint does not cure this deficiency.

As to diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiffs request damages of $500,000 from each 

Defendant; thus, the amount in controversy is met. However, Plaintiffs provide no 

information as to the citizenship of either Defendant and the Court is unable to determine 

if the Parties are diverse. Diversity of citizenship jurisdiction exists when all plaintiffs are 

diverse from all defendants, Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373 

(1978). Without any information as to the citizenship of either Defendant, the Court is 

unable to determine whether diversity jurisdiction exists.

As to federal question jurisdiction, the only federal law Plaintiff refers to is “US 

Code Chapter 47, # 1021.” If this is a reference to 47 U.S.C. § 1021, the Court is unable 

to determine how this statute, titled “Department of Justice Telecommunications Carrier 

Compliance Fund” relates to Plaintiffs’ allegations. Federal question jurisdiction exists 

with “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 

28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiffs have not stated how their Complaint arises under any federal 

law. See Levy v. Ryan Seacrest Prods., No. 2:13-CV-0070 KJM KJN, 2013 WL 418291, 

at *4 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2013) (“‘A ‘bare citation to’ federal statutes or the U.S. 

Constitution fails to establish the requisite subject matter jurisdiction.” (citing Denton v. 

Agents of Or., No. 3:12-CV-00022-HZ, 2012 WL 6617389, at *2 (D. Or. Dec. 19, 2012))).

And, as the Court noted previously, merely asserting that Defendant violated Plaintiffs’ 

rights under the Constitution “is not sufficient to apprise either the Court or the named 

Defendant as to the claims at issue in this case. Plaintiffs would need to, at a minimum, 

list specific statutory or constitutional provisions Defendant violated in order to cure this 

deficiency.” (ECF No. 3, at 4–5.)

Thus, Plaintiffs have not established that subject matter jurisdiction exists over this 

case. Further, Plaintiffs have not proven that this Court has personal jurisdiction over 

Case 3:16-cv-02053-JLS-WVG Document 15 Filed 05/10/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

16-CV-2053-JLS (NLS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendants because Plaintiffs have provided no information as to whether Defendants are 

located in this state, conduct any business in this state, or have any contacts in this state.

The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ request to reopen the case. However, the Court 

GRANTS Plaintiffs an opportunity to file a second amended complaint. The Complaint 

is to specify not only Plaintiffs’ causes of action, but the specific laws that Plaintiffs allege 

Defendants violated. The Complaint must also detail why this Court has subject matter 

jurisdiction over this matter and personal jurisdiction over Defendants.

Plaintiffs SHALL file a second amended complaint on or before June 25, 2018. If 

Plaintiffs file a second amended complaint, their case will be reopened. The Court will 

again screen Plaintiffs’ Complaint and will direct the U.S. Marshals to serve the Complaint 

if it passes screening. If Plaintiffs fail to file a second amended complaint by this date, 

their case will remain closed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10, 2018

Case 3:16-cv-02053-JLS-WVG Document 15 Filed 05/10/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4