Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02263/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02263-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331cv Fed. Question: Other Civil Rights

---

– 1 – 15cv2263

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

DAVID B. TURNER JR.,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 15-cv-02263-BAS(JLB)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

v.

AT&T,

Defendant.

Plaintiff David Turner is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis against 

Defendant AT&T. Upon review of Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Court concludes it lacks 

subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Therefore, for the following reasons, the 

Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE this action. 

I. LEGAL STANDARD

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life 

Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “They possess only that power authorized 

by Constitution or a statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree.” Id.

(citations omitted). “It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited 

jurisdiction and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting 

jurisdiction.” Id. (citations omitted); see also Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 

F.3d 676, 684 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Case 3:15-cv-02263-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 10/26/16 Page 1 of 5
– 2 – 15cv2263

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

Although there has not been a request for dismissal, it is well-established that 

“a district court’s duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction is not contingent upon 

the parties’ arguments.” See United Inv’rs Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 

F.3d 960, 966 (9th Cir. 2004). Courts may consider the issue sua sponte. Demery v. 

Kupperman, 735 F.2d 1139, 1149 n.8 (9th Cir. 1984). Indeed, the Supreme Court has 

emphasized that “district courts have an ‘independent obligation to address subjectmatter jurisdiction sua sponte.’” Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Glob. Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 

567, 593 (2004) (quoting United States v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 300 F. Supp. 2d 964, 

972 (E.D. Cal. 2004)).

II. ANALYSIS

A. Diversity Jurisdiction

The first possibility for subject matter jurisdiction is based upon diversity of 

citizenship. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the court has original jurisdiction over “all civil 

actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, 

exclusive of interest and costs, and is between -- (1) citizens of different States . . . .” 

Thus, “[s]ubject matter jurisdiction based upon diversity of citizenship requires that 

no defendant have the same citizenship as any plaintiff.” Tosco Corp. v. Comtys. for 

a Better Env’t, 236 F.3d 495, 499 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam), abrogated on other 

grounds by Hertz Corp v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (2010). 

Whether the amount in controversy exceeds the $75,000 minimum for 

diversity jurisdiction is determined from the allegations or prayer of the complaint. 

St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 289 (1938). A general 

allegation that the damages exceed $75,000 is usually sufficient to satisfy this 

requirement. E.g., K. Durant Enters., LLC v. Swanson Travel Prof’ls, Inc., No. 13-

01534 MMM (AJWx), 2014 WL 545843, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2014) (citing 

Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1106 (9th Cir.

2010)). However, an action is subject to dismissal if “it is clear to a legal certainty” 

that the claim could not sustain a judgment over the minimum amount in controversy. 

Case 3:15-cv-02263-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 10/26/16 Page 2 of 5
– 3 – 15cv2263

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

See Christensen v. Nw. Airlines, Inc., 633 F.2d 529, 531 (9th Cir. 1980) (“It is clear 

to a legal certainty that appellant’s unliquidated tort claim could not sustain a 

judgment of over [the minimum amount in controversy] . . . . A federal court should 

not and cannot adjudicate such minor claims.”); see also Diefenthal v. C.A.B., 681 

F.2d 1039, 1052 (5th Cir. 1982). In other words, although a plaintiff may subjectively 

believe in good faith that the claim exceeds the minimum amount in controversy, the 

claim should nevertheless be dismissed if it lacks “objective good faith”—i.e., “if 

one familiar with the applicable law could not reasonably have concluded that the 

claim was worth the jurisdictional amount.” Esquilin-Mendoza v. Don King Prods., 

Inc., 638 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 2011). 

Here, the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s action. Plaintiff’s 

Complaint is titled “Breach of Contract [&] Unfair Business Practices.” (Compl.,

ECF No. 1.) Although the pleading is unclear, the Court construes Plaintiff’s 

Complaint as seeking damages against AT&T for breach of a monthly cell phone 

contract. (See id.) Plaintiff states he has a “$45 plan with unlimited phone, text, and 

high speed internet that has been slod [sic] for conflicts of interests.” (Id.) He alleges 

he has “missed important phone and internet contacts because of [problems caused 

by AT&T].” (See id.) Plaintiff “demands monetary compensation for the amount of 

$77,000,000.00.” (Id.)

In assessing diversity jurisdiction, the Court assumes Plaintiff states a claim 

for breach of contract against AT&T under California state law. Plaintiff does not 

allege the parties’ citizenship. (See Compl.) Yet, even if Plaintiff were to allege 

complete diversity of citizenship, the Court finds his claim does not satisfy the 

amount in controversy requirement. “[I]t is clear to a legal certainty” that Plaintiff’s 

breach of contract claim arising out of a $45 monthly cell phone contract with AT&T 

could not sustain a judgment over the required $75,000 amount in controversy. See 

Christensen, 633 F.2d at 531. Therefore, this Court “should not and cannot adjudicate 

such [a] minor claim[ ].” See id.; see also St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co., 303 U.S. at 

Case 3:15-cv-02263-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 10/26/16 Page 3 of 5
– 4 – 15cv2263

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

289; Esquilin-Mendoza, 638 F.3d at 4. Accordingly, assuming Plaintiff states a claim 

under state law, the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Complaint

because the amount in controversy requirement is not satisfied. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 

“Absent diversity of citizenship, federal-question jurisdiction is required.”

Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). The Court therefore turns to 

whether Plaintiff has established federal question jurisdiction.

B. Federal Question Jurisdiction

Alternatively, federal district courts have “original jurisdiction of all civil 

actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 

U.S.C. § 1331. “The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed 

by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists 

only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly 

pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc., 482 U.S. at 392.

Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint does not invoke federal question jurisdiction. 

Plaintiff does not identify or seek relief under a specified federal statute. However, 

as Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court will construe Plaintiff’s claims as arising 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. “Section 1983 creates a private right of action against 

individuals who, acting under color of state law, violate federal constitutional or 

statutory rights.” Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1074 (9th Cir. 2001). Section 

1983 “is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for 

vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 

393–94 (1989) (internal quotation marks omitted). “To establish § 1983 liability, a 

plaintiff must show both (1) deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution and 

laws of the United States, and (2) that the deprivation was committed by a person 

acting under color of state law.” Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc., 698 F.3d 1128, 1138 

(9th Cir. 2012).

Plaintiff alleges his “4th, 6th, 8th, 14th and 1st amendment . . . rights” were 

violated by Defendant. (See Compl.) However, Plaintiff does not allege that 

Case 3:15-cv-02263-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 10/26/16 Page 4 of 5
– 5 – 15cv2263

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

Defendant or its employees were acting under color of state law. Accordingly, the 

Court finds Plaintiff has failed to make a non-frivolous assertion of a federal claim 

sufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction.

1 See Bollard v. Cal. Province of 

the Soc’y of Jesus, 196 F.3d 940, 951 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Any non-frivolous assertion 

of a federal claim suffices to establish federal question jurisdiction.”). Thus, the Court 

lacks subject matter jurisdiction because there is no federal question presented in this 

action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

III. CONCLUSION

In sum, Plaintiff fails to establish diversity jurisdiction as required by 28 

U.S.C. § 1332. He also does not assert a claim that presents a federal question as 

required by 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Consequently, the Court lacks subject matter 

jurisdiction over this action, and the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE

this action in its entirety. If Plaintiff can correct the deficiencies in his Complaint, he 

may file an amended complaint no later than December 22, 2016. See 28 U.S.C. § 

1653. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 25, 2016

 

1 Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. Thus, in addition to assessing 

subject matter jurisdiction, the Court has an obligation to dismiss this case at any time 

if the Court determines that the action “fails to state a claim on which relief may be 

granted.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 

(9th Cir. 2001) (holding that the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not 

limited to prisoners). Even if Plaintiff’s Complaint establishes federal question 

jurisdiction, the Court finds it appropriate to dismiss any federal claim—whether 

arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or otherwise—for failure to state a claim.

Case 3:15-cv-02263-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 10/26/16 Page 5 of 5