Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02356/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02356-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

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

MARK E. VERNON,

Plaintiff,

v.

TESLA ENERGY; TESLA ENERGY 

OPERATIONS, INC.; SOLARCITY 

CORP., ROE CORPORATIONS, 

PARTNERSHIPS OR OTHER 

BUSINESS ENTITIES 1-10, Inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 19cv2356-JAH (RBB)

ORDER:

1. GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

[DOC. NO. 2]; AND

2. DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

On December 10, 2019, Mark E. Vernon (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed a 

complaint along with a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Doc. No. 2. After a careful review of the record and for the reasons 

set forth below, the Court (1) GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed IFP, [Doc. 

No. 2]; and (2) DISMISSES the complaint, [Doc. No. 1], without prejudice for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction.

I. Plaintiff’s IFP Motion

All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the 

United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 

Case 3:19-cv-02356-JAH-RBB Document 3 Filed 01/21/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
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

$400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 

prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. 

Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). Courts grant leave to proceed IFP when 

plaintiffs submit an affidavit, including a statement of all of their assets, showing the 

inability to pay the statutory filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

In support of his IFP motion, Plaintiff has submitted an application to proceed in this 

Court without paying fees or costs. See Doc. No. 2. The application indicates Plaintiff is 

unemployed and receives $2,100.00 per month in disability benefits during the last twelve

months. Id. at 2. Plaintiff has one checking account with a balance of $220.00 and $150.00 

in cash. Id. Additionally, Plaintiff receives no income from real property, investments, 

retirement accounts, gifts, or alimony. Id. at 1. Plaintiff has one dependent and anticipates 

no major changes to his income over the next twelve months. Id. at 4-5. 

In accordance with the information presented, the Court finds the Plaintiff 

adequately demonstrates his inability to pay the Court filing fee required to proceed with

the instant action. Therefore, the Court GRANTS the motion for leave to proceed IFP. 

II. Sua Sponte Screening Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

A. Standard of Review 

Notwithstanding payment of any filing fee or portion thereof, a complaint filed by 

any person proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject to a 

mandatory and sua sponte review and dismissal by the court to the extent it is “frivolous, 

malicious, fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek[s] monetary 

relief from a defendant immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. 

Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) 

are not limited to prisoners.”). “[S]ection 1915(e) not only permits, but requires, a district 

court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.” Lopez v. Smith, 

203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

Case 3:19-cv-02356-JAH-RBB Document 3 Filed 01/21/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
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

A court may also dismiss an action sua sponte at any time for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. California Diversified Promotions, Inc. v. Musick, 505 F.2d 278, 280 (9th Cir. 

1974). In contrast to dismissals for failure to state a claim, if the court lacks subject matter 

jurisdiction, it is not required to issue a summons or follow the other procedural 

requirements. See Franklin v. State of Or., State Welfare Division, 662 F.2d 1337, 1342 

(9th Cir. 1981).

B. Analysis

In Plaintiff’s complaint, he asserts state claims for negligence; intentional 

misrepresentation; breach of contract; breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair 

dealing; consumer fraud; and quantum meruit. Regarding jurisdiction, Plaintiff alleges this 

Court’s subject matter jurisdiction arises from diversity pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. To 

establish diversity jurisdiction, there must be: (1) complete diversity among opposing 

parties; and (2) an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000, exclusive of interests and 

costs. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating jurisdiction by 

showing “in his pleading, affirmatively and distinctly, the existence of whatever is essential 

to federal jurisdiction.” Smith v. McCullough, 270 U.S. 456, 459 (1926).

Plaintiff alleges to have suffered actual damages “of an amount in excess of $30,000

to be shown by proof or proven at trial.” (Doc. No. 1). Although Plaintiff prays for various 

other damages, including punitive damages and equitable relief, he has failed to plead 

sufficient facts to support damages beyond the requested $30,000. The assertions made in 

the complaint do not support the necessary threshold minimum of $75,000 to establish 

diversity jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the instant 

action and the complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. 

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:19-cv-02356-JAH-RBB Document 3 Filed 01/21/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

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

III. Conclusion and Order

The Court finds Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the existence of diversity 

jurisdiction. Therefore, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the present case.

Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby:

1. GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(a) [Doc No. 2];

2. DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 20, 2020

 

_________________________________

HON.JOHN A. HOUSTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:19-cv-02356-JAH-RBB Document 3 Filed 01/21/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4