Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-08015/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-08015-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

TODD WHITE,

Plaintiff,

v.

PAYPAL, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-08015-WHO 

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE'S REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION

Re: Dkt. Nos. 2, 8

There are two pending matters before me – pro se plaintiff Todd White’s application to 

proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu’s Report and 

Recommendation to dismiss this IFP action due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Dkt. Nos. 2, 

8. Having considered the IFP application, I GRANT it.

The complaint alleges state law claims for breach of contract, fraud, and violations of 

California Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq. Because the claims do not give rise to 

federal question jurisdiction, Magistrate Judge Ryu issued an order to show cause for plaintiff to 

clarify whether he alleges the existence of diversity jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 4. 

In response, the plaintiff asserts that defendant’s principal place of business is in Delaware. 

Dkt. No. 7. But upon taking judicial notice of defendant’s corporate Statement of Information, 

Judge Ryu found that defendant’s principal executive office is in San Jose, California, and 

therefore both parties are citizens of California. Plaintiff attempted to add a new federal claim 

under 18 U.S.C. § 241, but, as Magistrate Judge Ryu points out, Title 18 of the United States Code 

codifies federal criminal statutes that may only be prosecuted by the United States government. 

See Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 284 (1979) (discussing the very limited circumstances 

in which there is an implied private right of action under a criminal statute). Accordingly, 

Case 3:19-cv-08015-WHO Document 10 Filed 02/27/20 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

Magistrate Judge Ryu recommends that this case be dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction.

Objections to the recommendation were due no later than 14 days after its service on 

February 4, 2020. No objections have been filed as of the date of this Order. I find Magistrate 

Judge Ryu’s Report correct, well-reasoned, and thorough; I adopt it in every respect. Accordingly, 

the in forma pauperis request is GRANTED and the case is DISMISSED without prejudice for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. While I am skeptical that a plausible claim can be brought that 

would give this court jurisdiction, under the rules to liberally allow amendment, I will grant leave 

to amend within twenty days of the date below.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 27, 2020 

______________________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-08015-WHO Document 10 Filed 02/27/20 Page 2 of 2