Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01618/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01618-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 195
Nature of Suit: Contract Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract

---

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 

MICKEY NEWMAN, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

DE'LONGHI AMERICA, 

Defendant. 

CASE NO. 12-CV-1618 BEN (BGS) 

ORDER: 

(1) DISMISSING ACTION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

(2) DENYING AS MOOT MOTION 

TOPROCEEDINFO~ 

PAUPERIS 

[Docket No.2] 

On June 29, 2012,pro se Plaintiff Mickey Newman filed a Complaint alleging a violation of 

the Unifonn Commercial Code § 2-314. (Docket No.1.) Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis. (Docket No.2.) The Court decides the matters on the papers submitted. For the 

reasons outlined below, the Court DISMISSES the action without prejudice and DENIES as moot 

Plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 

BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff alleges that on November 13,2009, he "suffered serious and pennanent injuries as the 

result ofan electrocution that occurred from [a] defect in Defendant's (Indoor Grill)." (Compl., 3.) 

Plaintiff brought the present action against the manufacturer ofthe indoor grill, De'Longhi America, 

on June 29,2012. The Complaint asserts: (I) "Strict Liability-Defect in Design-Product Liability;" 

(2) "Negligent Design andlor Maintenance-Product Liability;" (3) "Strict Liability-Abnonnally 

- 1 - 12CV1618 

Case 3:12-cv-01618-BEN-BGS Document 3 Filed 07/27/12 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 

Dangerous Activity-Products Liability;" and (4) "Strict Liability-Breach of Implied Warranty of 

Merchantability Dangerous Products-Strict Liability.'~ (Id. ~~ 6-16.) 

DISCUSSION 

I. SUA SPONTE SCREENING AND DISMISSAL 

A complaint filed by any person proceeding, or seeking to proceed, in forma pauperis under 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject to mandatory sua sponte review and dismissal if the complaint is 

frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief 

from a defendant immune from suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopezv. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,1126­

27 (9th Cir. 2000). 

The legal sufficiency of a complaint is tested under Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 12(b)(6). 

Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). Under Rule 12(b)(6), dismissal is appropriate 

ifthe complaint fails to state a facially plausible claim for relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 

544, 556-57 (2007). That is, the complaint must state enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation 

that discovery will reveal evidence ofthe claim. Id. at 556. Dismissal is also appropriate when the 

complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory. Robertson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 749 F.2d 530,534 

(9th Cir. 1984). The court must assume the truth of all factual allegations and construe them in the 

light most favorable to the plaintiff. Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 2002); Cahill 

v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336,337-38 (9th Cir. 1996). Pro se litigants are not "excused from 

knowing the most basic pleading requirements." Am. Ass 'n ofNaturopathic PhYSicians v. Hayhurst, 

227 F.3d 1104, 1107 (9th Cir. 2000). 

It is not apparent from the face of the Complaint whether the Court has subj ect matter 

jurisdiction over the present action. For the Court to possess subject matter jurisdiction, either federal 

question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction must exist. First, because the Complaint does not allege 

violation ofany federallaw, this Court does not have federal questionjurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. 1331 

("The district courts shall have original jurisdiction ofall civil actions arising under the Constitution, 

laws, or treaties ofthe United States."). 

Second, it is unclear whether the Court possesses diversity jurisdiction. "The district courts 

shall have original jurisdiction ofall civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or 

- 2 - 12CV1618 

Case 3:12-cv-01618-BEN-BGS Document 3 Filed 07/27/12 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 

value of$75,000, exclusive ofinterest and costs, and is between---{ 1) citizens ofdifferent States." 28 

U.S.c. § 1332(a). Plaintiff is a citizen of California (CompI. ,-r 1), meaning that for diversity to exist, 

Defendant must be a citizen ofa State other than California. For diversity purposes, a corporation may 

be a citizen ofany State by which it has been incorporated and the State where it has its principal place 

of business. 28 U.S.C. 1332(c)(1). Although Plaintiff alleges that Defendant "conducts business 

regularly and substantially with local vendors throughout California from Park 80 West, Plaza One, 

Saddleback, NJ 07662," (CompI. ,-r 2), Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant has been incorporated 

in or has its principal place of business in a State other than California. In addition, Plaintiff does not 

specify the amount in controversy. 

Accordingly, the Court finds that it is unclear whether it possesses subject matter jurisdiction 

over the present action. The Complaint is, therefore, DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

II. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

Because Plaintiffs Complaint is dismissed, Plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis 

is DENIED as moot. 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated above, the Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint that corrects the deficiencies outlined above. 

Any such amended complaint must be filed no later than September 7, 2012. 

The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as moot. If Plaintiff wishes to renew 

his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, he must file a new motion to proceed in forma pauperis 

along with an amended complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. ,. I t£. 

DATED: Julykf' 2012 

- 3 - 12CV1618 

Case 3:12-cv-01618-BEN-BGS Document 3 Filed 07/27/12 Page 3 of 3