Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00623/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00623-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1345 Foreclosure

---

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

RAUL LUNA; AND NATALIA

LUNA,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 13cv623-GPC(JMA)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS AND SUA

SPONTE DISMISSING CASE FOR

LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER

JURISDICTION

[Dkt. No. 2.] 

vs.

GREENLIGHT FINANCIAL

SERVICES, M.E.R.S., NDEX WEST,

LLC/AMERICAS SERVICING;

BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION AS SUCCESSOR

BY MERGER TO LASALLE BANK

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

UNIDENTIFIED JOHN AND JANE

DOES,

Defendants.

Plaintiffs Raul Luna and Natalia Luna, proceeding pro se, commenced this

action against Defendants regarding the wrongful foreclosure of their home. Plaintiffs

concurrently filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) under 28 U.S.C. §

1915(a). For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to proceed

IFP, but sua sponte DISMISSES their suit for lack of jurisdiction.

Discussion

I. Motion to Proceed IFP

Plaintiffs move to proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Section 1915(a)

allows a court to authorize a lawsuit's commencement without payment ofthe filing fee

- 1 - [13cv623-GPC(JMA)]

Case 3:13-cv-00623-GPC-JMA Document 3 Filed 05/15/13 Page 1 of 3
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

if the plaintiff submits an affidavit demonstrating his or her inability to pay the filing

fee. Such affidavit must include a complete statement of the plaintiff's assets. Here,

Plaintiffs submit a declaration of their assets. Based on the answers, it appears that

they are able to pay the filing fee. One of the plaintiffs is currently employed and

makes $3000 per month, owns a car and has no debt. However, Plaintiffs do have

monthly payments to support their family. Plaintiffs also provide conflicting

information. While they state that they do not own any real estate, they state that they

have a $1800 mortgage payment. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs fail

to meet the requirements to proceed IFP and DENIES their request to proceed IFP. 

II. Sua Sponte Dismissal for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

It is well-established that a federal court cannot reach the merits of any dispute

until it confirms that it retains subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the issues

presented. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environ., 523 U.S. 83, 94-95 (1998). 

Accordingly, federal courts are under a continuing duty to confirm their jurisdictional

power and are “obliged to inquire sua sponte whenever a doubt arises as to [its]

existence . . . .” Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 278

(1977) (citations omitted). 

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Unlike state courts, they have

no “inherent” or “general” subject matter jurisdiction. They can adjudicate only those

cases which the Constitution and Congress authorize them to adjudicate, i.e. those

involving diversity of citizenship, a federal question, or to which the United States is

a party. See Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545 (1989). Federal courts are

presumptively without jurisdiction over civil actions and the burden of establishing the

contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life

Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).

Here, Plaintiffs allege that their “deed of trust violates due process as a contract

of adhesion;” “deed of trust violates due process as a cognovit note”; and they seek

relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act. In the complaint, Plaintiffs cite the due

- 2 - [13cv623-GPC(JMA)]

Case 3:13-cv-00623-GPC-JMA Document 3 Filed 05/15/13 Page 2 of 3
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

process provision in the California Constitution. Based on the allegations in the

complaint, it is not clear whether Plaintiff is asserting a violation under federal orstate

law. As a result, these allegations do not give rise to a federal question or diversity

jurisdiction. Moreover, the United States is not a party to this case. Plaintiffs do not

state a sufficient basis for federalsubject matter jurisdiction over his case. Accordingly

the Court sua sponte DISMISSES the complaint for lack ofsubject matter jurisdiction.

Conclusion 

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to proceed

IFP and sua sponte DISMISSES the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs 45 days from the date this Order is stamped "Filed" to

file an amended complaint that addresses the deficiencies of pleading set forth above. 

Plaintiffs’ amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to the

superseded pleading. Defendants not named and all claims not re-alleged in the

amended complaint will be deemed to have been waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d

565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 15, 2013

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 3 - [13cv623-GPC(JMA)]

Case 3:13-cv-00623-GPC-JMA Document 3 Filed 05/15/13 Page 3 of 3