Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00063/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00063-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

1

15-cv-00063-RMW

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HICHAM JORIO,

Plaintiff,

v.

MOHAMED BENMANSOUR,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-00063-RMW 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION AND 

DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S 

COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Re: Dkt. No. 24

On September 21, 2015, the magistrate judge referred the case for reassignment to district 

court, recommending that the district court dismiss plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice. Dkt. 

No. 24. The case is now before the undersigned. Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report 

and no objections having been filed,1the court adopts the magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation in full and hereby ORDERS that plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without 

prejudice.

Plaintiff Hicham Jorio filed a complaint alleging contractual breach, unjust enrichment, 

and conversion against defendant Mohamed Benmansour on January 6, 2015. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff 

consented to have a United States magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings in the case. 

Dkt. No. 5. 

 

1 Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), plaintiff had fourteen days from service of the magistrate judge’s 

report and recommendation to file any objections. 

Case 5:15-cv-00063-RMW Document 26 Filed 10/16/15 Page 1 of 2
2

15-cv-00063-RMW

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

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

Northern District of California

Plaintiff moved for default judgment on July 17, 2015. Dkt. No. 18. Before determining 

whether to enter a default judgment, a court has “an affirmative duty to look into its jurisdiction 

over both the subject matter and the parties.” In re Tuli, 172 F.3d 707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999). “The 

party seeking to invoke the court’s jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing that jurisdiction 

exists.” Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986). The magistrate judge ordered 

plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or, in the 

alternative, to amend the complaint to cure the jurisdictional deficiencies. Dkt. No. 20. Plaintiff 

filed a response, but he did not amend the complaint to plead subject matter and personal 

jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 21. The magistrate judge afforded plaintiff another opportunity to cure the 

jurisdictional deficiencies in his complaint. Dkt. No. 22. Plaintiff has not amended the complaint. 

The court, therefore, adopts the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in full and 

DISMISSES plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter and personal 

jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 16, 2015

______________________________________

Ronald M. Whyte

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-00063-RMW Document 26 Filed 10/16/15 Page 2 of 2