Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00244/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00244-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 240
Nature of Suit: Torts to Land
Cause of Action: 28:2410 Quiet Title

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES VICTOR HOOPER,

a married man,

Plaintiff,

v.

HERBERT SANDLER, a U.S. Vessel;

MERION O. SANDLER, a U.S. Vessel;

WORLD SAVINGS and LOAN, an entity;

GOLDEN WEST SAVINGS ASSO., SERVICE

CO. INC., an entity,

 Defendants.

CIV. S-05-0244 MCE PAN PS

ORDER

—NFN—

Plaintiff paid the filing fee and commenced this action

February 7, 2004, for quiet title, breach of contract and fraud. 

Defendants Herbert Sandler and Merion O. Sandler are the

principals of defendant World Savings Bank, FSB and its trustee,

defendant Golden West Savings Association Service Company. 

Plaintiff borrowed $190,000.00 from defendants and secured his

Case 2:05-cv-00244-MCE -PAN Document 15 Filed 08/17/05 Page 1 of 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

2

debt with an interest in plaintiff’s residential property;

plaintiff apparently defaulted and now challenges the contract. 

Defendants move to dismiss. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) authorizes dismissal of a

complaint for “lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.” 

While not asserted by defendants, lack of subject matter

jurisdiction may be raised sua sponte by a court at any time. 

City of Kenosha v. Bruno, 412 U.S. 507, 511-12 (1973); O’Donnell

v. Wien Air Alaska, Inc., 551 F.2d 1141, 1145, n.3 (9th Cir.

1977); Ryther v. Lumber Products, Inc., 799 F.2d 1412, 1414 (9th

Cir. 1986).

“A party invoking the federal court's jurisdiction has

the burden of proving the actual existence of subject matter

jurisdiction.” Thompson v. McCombe, 99 F.3d 352, 353 (9th Cir.

1996); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (requiring that a pleading set

forth “a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the

court’s jurisdiction depends”). 

Plaintiff invokes only this court’s admiralty

jurisdiction, referring to the individual defendants as “U.S.

Vessels,” and citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1333 (admiralty jurisdiction),

1330 (actions against foreign states) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(h)

(admiralty and maritime claims). Plaintiff asserts the court’s

admiralty jurisdiction renders him “under a restricted special

appearance and the herein cause of action is wrapped in

restrictions, representations, and warranties with prejudice. .

.” Complaint, para. 9. 

Case 2:05-cv-00244-MCE -PAN Document 15 Filed 08/17/05 Page 2 of 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

1 1 U.S.C. § 3 defines “vessel” as “every description of watercraft or

other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of

3

A federal court’s authority to hear cases in admiralty

flows initially from the Constitution, which extends federal

judicial power to all Cases of admiralty and maritime

Jurisdiction. U.S. Const., Art. III, § 2. Congress has embodied

that power in a statute giving federal district courts original

jurisdiction of any civil case of admiralty or maritime

jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1). Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v.

Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527, 531, 115 S.Ct. 1043,

1047 (1995). The United States exercises admiralty jurisdiction

over matters involving the high seas and navigable waters within

the jurisdiction of the United States, and vessels upon or

aircraft above such waters. 18 U.S.C. § 7. To ascertain whether

a contract is a maritime one depends upon the nature and

character of the contract, and the true criterion is whether it

has reference to maritime service or maritime transactions. 

Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Kirby, 125 S.Ct. 385, 393, 73

USLW 4005 (2004). 

 Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of proving this

court’s admiralty jurisdiction over the complaint. Plaintiff

avers neither a maritime business purpose for the disputed loan

nor any facts to conclude the parties’ contract references

maritime services or transactions. The disputed Deed of Trust,

attached to the complaint, references nothing maritime. Labeling

defendants “U.S. Vessels”1 does not give rise to this court’s

Case 2:05-cv-00244-MCE -PAN Document 15 Filed 08/17/05 Page 3 of 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 transportation on water.”

4

admiralty jurisdiction. Nor does plaintiff’s filing of a UCC

Financing Statement. 

Defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted and the

complaint is dismissed.

Plaintiff may, within ten days after service of this

order, file and serve an amended complaint setting forth the

basis of this court’s jurisdiction and a clear statement of

plaintiff’s claims and request for relief. Plaintiff’s failure

timely to comply with this order will result in a recommendation

this action be dismissed.

Plaintiff is also warned that further false or fanciful

representations (e.g., identifying defendants as “U.S. Vessels”)

will be sanctioned by fine or dismissal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11; see

also E. D. Cal. Local Rule 11-110.

So ordered.

Dated: August 17, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00244-MCE -PAN Document 15 Filed 08/17/05 Page 4 of 4