Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02711/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02711-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331pi Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

– 1 – 18cv2711

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

PRIMO DANIELSEN,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 18-cv-2711-BAS-BLM

ORDER DISMISSING 

COMPLAINT WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

v.

JAMIE DIMON,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Primo Danielsen has filed a Complaint against Defendant Jamie 

Dimon. (“Compl.,” ECF No. 1.) The Complaint is very brief and lists a claim for 

“Trespass [Extortion, Fraud].” Plaintiff alleges Defendant trespassed on his property 

and created a false document and forged instrument that harmed Plaintiff’s property. 

Plaintiff request compensation of $3,500,000. The Court ordered Plaintiff to show 

cause why subject matter jurisdiction is proper and why the Complaint should not be 

dismissed for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff filed a response. 

(“Resp.,” ECF No. 7.) 

/ / /

Case 3:18-cv-02711-BAS-BLM Document 8 Filed 01/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
– 2 – 18cv2711

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

I. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

Plaintiffs states in his Response that he included a “revised coversheet” and 

“wish[ed] the previous coversheet be void.” (Resp. 1.)1 No coversheet is attached to 

the Response. Therefore, Plaintiff has again provided no detail as to why subject 

matter jurisdiction is proper in this case. “[D]istrict courts have an ‘independent 

obligation to address subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte.’” Grupo Dataflux v. 

Atlas Global 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)). There are two types of 

jurisdiction: federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s 

Complaint presents no federal question. Further, Plaintiff provides no detail as to 

how diversity jurisdiction may exist. Federal courts have diversity jurisdiction 

“where the amount in controversy” exceeds $75,000, and the parties are of “diverse” 

state citizenship. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff provided no detail as to the citizenship 

of the Parties in his case. Therefore, Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged subject 

matter jurisdiction is proper.

II. FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

The entirety of Plaintiff’s Complaint is four bullet points which state: 1. 

Wrongdoer trespassed on property; 2. Wrongdoer uttered a forged instrument that 

interfered with Plaintiff’s right to property; 3. The wrong, harm and trespass 

continues to this day; and 4. Compensation due is $3,500,000. (Compl. 1.) In his 

Response, Plaintiff states he believes he has stated a proper claim because: 1. 

Wrongdoer uttered a forged instrument that interfered with Plaintiff’s right to 

property; 2. Wrongdoer created a false document that harms Plaintiff’s property; and 

3. The wrong, harm and trespass continues to this day. (Resp. 1.) Plaintiff’s 

Complaint and his Response are nothing more than recitation of vague elements, with 

 

1 On his civil cover sheet, Plaintiff claims the basis of jurisdiction is because the plaintiff is the 

U.S. Government. (ECF No. 1-1.) This is incorrect; Plaintiff is not the government but is a private 

citizen.

Case 3:18-cv-02711-BAS-BLM Document 8 Filed 01/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
– 3 – 18cv2711

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

no supporting facts or allegations.

The Court “may act on its own initiative to note the inadequacy of a complaint 

and dismiss it for failure to state a claim” after first “giv[ing] notice of its sua sponte

intention to invoke Rule 12(b)(6) and afford[ing] plaintiffs ‘an opportunity to at least 

submit a written memorandum in opposition to such motion.’” Wong v. Bell, 642 

F.2d 359, 361–62 (9th Cir. 1981) (citing Crawford v. Bell, 599 F. 2d 890, 893 (9th 

Cir. 1979), quoting Potter v. McCall, 433 F.2d 1087, 1088 (9th Cir. 1970)); see Omar 

v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987) (“A trial court may dismiss 

a claim sua sponte under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)”).

“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual 

matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ A 

claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the 

court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct 

alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)). Conclusory statements that merely recite the 

elements of a claim are insufficient for the purpose of 12(b)(6). See Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

at 678 (“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice.”); Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (“[A] plaintiff's 

obligation to provide the ‘grounds' of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than 

labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action 

will not do”).

III. CONCLUSION

Given Plaintiff’s inadequate response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause, the 

Court entertains doubts about Plaintiff’s ability to articulate a claim that is properly 

before this Court’s jurisdiction. However, given Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court 

will grant Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint that addresses the 

deficiencies noted in this Order. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to file an 

amended complaint on or before February 4, 2019. Failure to file an amended 

Case 3:18-cv-02711-BAS-BLM Document 8 Filed 01/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
– 4 – 18cv2711

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

complaint by this date may result in Plaintiff’s case being dismissed for failure to 

prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 4, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-02711-BAS-BLM Document 8 Filed 01/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4