Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-05957/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-05957-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

E-filed 11/23/2016

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LILLIYA WILLIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANDRE WILLIS,

Defendant.

Case No.16-cv-05957-HRL 

ORDER REASSIGNING CASE TO A 

DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

RE: DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF 

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

Re: Dkt. No. 4

Pro se plaintiff Lilliya Willis (“Willis”) filed her complaint in this action on October 14, 

2016. Dkt. No. 1. The complaint alleges claims for trespass, breach of contract, fraud, and 

extortion, and accuses the defendant of bringing a “false court case” against Willis. Id.

On October 26, 2016, the court issued an order to show cause why this case should not be 

dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 4. The order described the deficiencies 

of Willis’s complaint—namely, that it did not demonstrate any basis for federal subject matter 

jurisdiction, including federal question or diversity. Id. In particular, the order noted that the 

complaint did not reference any federal law or constitutional provision, and it did not include a 

description of the parties’ state citizenship or an amount in controversy. The order also set a 

deadline for a response and a hearing date of November 22, 2016, and it suggested that Willis 

consult with the court’s pro se program. Id.

In response to the order to show cause, Willis sent the court a letter, which was received on 

November 7, 2016. Dkt. No. 5. The letter did not state (or attempt to state) any valid basis for 

federal subject matter jurisdiction. Id. Willis then failed to appear at the show cause hearing on 

November 22.

Case 5:16-cv-05957-BLF Document 7 Filed 11/23/16 Page 1 of 2
2

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

The court has a duty to determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 12(h). A case must be dismissed if it appears at any time before the final judgment that the 

court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Id.

The two main sources of subject matter jurisdiction are federal question jurisdiction (also 

known as “arising under” jurisdiction) and diversity jurisdiction. Federal courts have original 

jurisdiction over civil claims “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United 

States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A claim “arises under” federal law if, based on the “well-pleaded 

complaint rule,” the plaintiff alleges a federal claim for relief. Vaden v. Discovery Bank, 129 S. 

Ct. 1262, 1272 (2009). Federal district courts also have jurisdiction over civil actions between 

citizens of different states in which the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 

(exclusive of interest and costs). 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Because the parties have yet to consent to the undersigned’s jurisdiction, the court 

ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to reassign this case to a District Judge. The undersigned further 

RECOMMENDS that the newly assigned judge dismiss this action without prejudice, as Willis 

has failed to demonstrate any basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction. Any party may serve 

and file objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen days after being served. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 11/23/2016

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:16-cv-05957-BLF Document 7 Filed 11/23/16 Page 2 of 2