Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-mc-80128/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-mc-80128-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

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

IN RE $16,000,000 USD ASSET 

PROPERTY/PROCEEDS OF 

SALE/CARGO LOCATED AT 1325 

BROADWAY AVE., OAKLAND, CA 

94612

Case No. 16-mc-80128-MEJ 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONS 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 1-4

INTRODUCTION

On June 20, 2016, Jeremy Lafitte—an alleged “Real Party In Interest/Lien Claimant”—

filed ex parte the following documents: (1) “Notice and Petition of Enforcement of Maritime Lien, 

Adjudication and Declaration of Condenmend [sic] Captured Prize Property and Asset Forfeture 

[sic]” (Dkt. No. 1); (2) “Petition in the Nature of a Precipe to the Clerk for Instant Immidiate [sic] 

Judicial Review and Hearing Ex Parte” (Dkt. No. 2); (3) “Petition in the Nature of a Motion for 

Issuance of Order and Warrant for Arrest” (Dkt. No. 3); (4) “Petition in the Nature of a Motion for 

Issuance of a Prejudgment Interest Award” (Dkt. No. 4); and “Order for Issuance of Warrant for 

Arrest” (Dkt. No. 4-1) (collectively “Petitions”). On July 1, 2016, Mr. Lafitte consented to the 

jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Dkt. No. 6. 

Therefore, the undersigned may exercise jurisdiction to conduct all proceedings in this matter, 

including the entry of judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 73. Having reviewed Mr. Lafitte‟s Petitions, the 

supporting documentation, and the relevant legal authority, the Court now DENIES his Petitions 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

BACKGROUND

The Court has carefully reviewed Mr. Lafitte‟s Petitions but finds them largely 

incomprehensible. From what the Court can tell, Mr. Lafitte alleges he was in a dispute with some 

Case 3:16-mc-80128-MEJ Document 8 Filed 07/15/16 Page 1 of 5
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

employees at a Citibank branch over his attempts to open an account without a social security 

number. Dkt. No. 1 at 21. He alleges he “was a visitor at the time of injury 0n bored the vessel 

CITI BANK 1325 Broadway Oakland ca 94612[.]” Id. at 6 (errors in original). He now seeks to 

obtain and enforce a maritime lien against “the vessel CITI BANK as tortfeasor” and a “Warrant 

In Rem for the arrest of Prize Property $16M as cargo goods, asset property Located at 1325 

Broadway Oakland California 94612[.]” Id. at 7 (errors in original). In doing so, he identifies 

himself as the Lien Claimant, stating the “Lien Debtors were in default, causing a total loss, under 

the Wrongful Death on High Seas Act, Lien Claimant died from the Default of Obligations by 

Lien Debtors[.]” Id. at 1, 6 (errors in original). Mr. Lafitte claims that as of August 27, 2014, he 

had a “Secured Interest / Absolute right given Operation of law by a tacit hypothecation” and is 

therefore entitled to prejudgment interest as well. Dkt. No. 4. 

While Mr. Lafitte names three Citibank employees as alleged Lien Debtors, he does not 

explain why they owe any debt. Dkt. No. 1 at 2. Nor does he state how he is the Lien Claimant. 

Additionally, it is not clear whether he is in fact seeking a maritime lien against a vessel (or 

whether a vessel is even involved in this suit) or is instead filing a complaint; in what appears to 

be a proposed order, he requests “that the Clerk shall issue warrant for maritime arrest as prayed 

for in the Complaint and Affidavit[.]” Dkt. No. 4-1. Elsewhere he requests a “Warrant In Rem” 

and that “all persons claiming an interest may be cited to appear and answer the matter in the 

complaint.” Dkt. No. 1 at 7. 

DISCUSSION

As the Court finds these Petitions largely incomprehensible at this point, on that basis 

alone, the Court must deny them at this time as it cannot assess, among other things, whether (1) 

Mr. Lafitte has a basis for his purported maritime lien, or (2) the Court has subject-matter 

jurisdiction over his claims.

First, the basis for Mr. Lafitte‟s purported maritime lien is too unclear to support relief at 

this time. The only property mentioned in the Petitions is what he has titled, “the vessel CITI 

 

1

The original filings do not contain page numbers so the Court is references the ECF page 

numbers assigned to the documents. 

Case 3:16-mc-80128-MEJ Document 8 Filed 07/15/16 Page 2 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

BANK 1325 Broadway Oakland Ca 94612” (Dkt. No. 1 at 6), which is, by all accounts, a landlocked, Citibank branch building. See Boyce Motor Lines v. United States, 342 U.S. 337, 344

(1952) (taking judicial notice of geography); United States v. Perea-Rey, 680 F.3d 1179, 1182 n.1

(9th Cir. 2012) (taking judicial notice of a Google map and satellite image as a “source[] whose 

accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned” to determine the general location of a home). A 

maritime lien can only be placed upon vessels, and therefore cannot be placed on this property. 

See Trans-Tec Asia v. M/V Harmony Container, 518 F.3d 1120, 1128 (9th Cir. 2008) (defining a 

maritime lien as a claim upon maritime property, i.e, a vessel, for service done to it or injury 

caused by it); 46 U.S.C. § 31342(a) (“[A] person providing necessaries to a vessel on the order of 

the owner or a person authorized by the owner . . . has a maritime lien on the vessel” and “may 

bring a civil action in rem to enforce the lien.”); Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014) (defining 

“vessel” as “[a] ship, brig, sloop, or other craft used—or capable of being used—to navigate on 

water.”). Moreover, it is not clear how Mr. Lafitte or the alleged “Lien Debtors” did anything in 

relation to a vessel.

Second, Mr. Lafitte has failed to show this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction2over his 

claims. While federal district courts have original jurisdiction over “[a]ny civil case of admiralty 

or maritime jurisdiction[,]” 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1), without a vessel, Mr. Lafitte cannot seek relief 

from this Court based on admiralty or maritime jurisdiction. See Ventura Packers, Inc. v. F/V 

Jeanine Kathleen, 305 F.3d 913, 917 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[A]dmiralty naturally centers around 

[vessels]”); Luna v. Star of India, 356 F. Supp. 59, 63 (S.D. Cal. 1973) (“[A]dmiralty jurisdiction 

relates to things occurring on or to vessels . . . .”). Nor has he provided any other basis for 

subject-matter jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 1 at 1. While Mr. Lafitte cites some federal statutes—18 

U.S.C. § 242 (deprivation of civil rights under color of law), 18 U.S.C. § 241 (conspiracy against 

 

2

Subject-matter jurisdiction is fundamental and cannot be waived. Billingsley v. C.I.R., 868 F.2d 

1081, 1085 (9th Cir. 1989). Federal courts can adjudicate only those cases which the Constitution 

and Congress authorize them to adjudicate—those involving diversity of citizenship or a federal 

question, or those to which the United States is a party. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 

Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); see also Chen-Cheng Wang ex rel. U.S. v. FMC Corp., 975 F.2d 

1412, 1415 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Federal courts have no power to consider claims for which they lack 

subject-matter jurisdiction.”).

Case 3:16-mc-80128-MEJ Document 8 Filed 07/15/16 Page 3 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

civil rights), 42 U.S.C. § 408 (proposed legislation describing penalties for abusing social security 

benefits), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil action for deprivation of rights) (see Dkt. No. 1 at 5)—it is 

unclear how these laws apply. Mr. Lafitte has not alleged facts demonstrating that he can prove 

the elements of claims based on these statutes.

Moreover, to the extent he meant his Petitions to be construed as a complaint, Rule 8 

requires that pleadings contain “a short and plain statement” of the claim showing that the pleader 

is entitled to relief and the basis for the court‟s subject-matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); 

see also Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (a complaint must provide a 

defendant with “fair notice” of the claims against it and the grounds for relief); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“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.”). The Court may dismiss a complaint that does not abide by Rule 8 because 

defendants are deprived of notice of the claims against them and cannot adequately respond, and

the Court is deprived of the necessary information to manage the litigation before it. See Cafasso 

v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1059 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Rule 8(a) has been held to 

be violated by a pleading that was . . . highly repetitious, or confused, or consisted of 

incomprehensible rambling.”); Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir. 1981) 

(Rule 8(a) is violated when a complaint is excessively “verbose, confusing and almost entirely 

conclusory”); Tomas v. Aegis Mortg. Co., 2011 WL 320901, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2011)

(dismissing what the court construed as a complaint because the filing was “devoid of coherent 

factual allegations and cognizable legal theory”). Mr. Lafitte‟s Petitions, even broadly construed 

are unclear and the facts provided also do not appear to give rise to claims under the federal 

statutes cited in the Petitions, or otherwise provide the required information under Rule 8 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

While the Court must deny Mr. Lafitte‟s Petitions at this time, the Court does so with leave 

to amend. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals has “repeatedly held that „a district court should grant leave to amend even if no request 

to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be 

Case 3:16-mc-80128-MEJ Document 8 Filed 07/15/16 Page 4 of 5
5

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

cured by the allegation of other facts.‟” (quotation omitted)).

CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing analysis, the Court DENIES Mr. Lafitte‟s Petitions but does so 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. If Mr. Lafitte decides to file an amended petition (or file a 

complaint if he so intended), he must state the basis for his claims and facts supporting those 

claims. Mr. Lafitte shall file any amended petition or complaint by August 16, 2016. Failure to 

file an amended complaint or petition by this deadline shall result in the dismissal of this case.

In preparing the amended petition or complaint, Mr. Lafitte may wish to seek assistance 

from the Legal Help Center, a free service of the Volunteer Legal Services Program, by calling 

415-782-8982, or by signing up for an appointment on the 15th Floor of the Federal Courthouse in 

San Francisco, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. More information is 

available at http://cand.uscourts.gov/helpcentersf. The Court also recommends that Mr. Lafitte 

obtain a copy of the Court‟s Handbook for Litigants Without a Lawyer, which is available free of 

charge in the Clerk‟s Office, or online at http://cand.uscourts.gov/prosehandbk. This handbook 

provides an explanation of the required components of a complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 15, 2016

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-mc-80128-MEJ Document 8 Filed 07/15/16 Page 5 of 5