Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01755/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01755-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

SADIE S. SHAW,

Plaintiff,

v.

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-01755-JD 

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

Re: Dkt. No. 14

Pro se plaintiff Sadie Shaw filed this diversity action against various defendants on April 

17, 2015, alleging thirteen causes of action stemming from “negligent, fraudulent and unlawful 

conduct concerning a residential DOT loan transaction and foreclosure action.” Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 1. 

Shaw dismissed defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. from the case with prejudice on October 

13, 2015. Dkt. No. 35. The Court stayed defendants Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC’s and 

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.’s motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 14, pending the 

parties’ participation in alternative dispute resolution. Dkt. No. 27. At the unsuccessful 

conclusion of that process, the Court lifted the stay and ordered Shaw to respond to the Complaint, 

which she did on October 20, 2015. Dkt. Nos. 36, 37. Shaw agreed to drop all claims and 

arguments “related to securitization,” and indicated she would only maintain claims based on “the 

aforementioned Civil Code sections, as well as Fraud and material breaches.” Dkt. No. 37 at 2. 

The Court finds this matter suitable for resolution without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local 

Rule 7-1(b) and now dismisses the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

DISCUSSION

The Court’s first order of business in every case is making sure that its jurisdiction has 

been properly established. “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. See Bender v. 

Williamsport Area School Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986). If not given the power to consider a 

Case 3:15-cv-01755-JD Document 40 Filed 02/01/16 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

claim under the United States Constitution or a federal statute, they lack subject matter jurisdiction 

and must dismiss the claim. See Chen–Cheng Wang ex rel. United States v. FMC Corp., 975 F.2d 

1412, 1415 (9th Cir.1992). The party asserting subject matter jurisdiction bears the burden of 

showing that it exists. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).” 

Cupp v. Straley, No. 15–cv–01565–JD, 2015 WL 4735212 at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug 10, 2015); see 

also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter 

jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”) Here, plaintiff invokes diversity jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). “The essential elements of diversity jurisdiction, including the diverse 

residence of all parties, must be affirmatively alleged in the pleadings.” Bautista v. Pan Am. 

World Airlines, Inc., 828 F.2d 546, 552 (9th Cir. 1987) (internal citation omitted). 

Shaw’s complaint fails this requirement. The complaint does not provide enough 

information to establish that this is an action between “citizens of different States” that the Court 

is empowered to hear. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). As an initial matter, plaintiff’s own citizenship for 

diversity purposes is unclear. A person is a citizen of the state where she is domiciled, which is 

the “location where he or she has established a fixed habitation or abode in a particular place, and 

[intends] to remain there permanently or indefinitely.” Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 749-50 (9th 

Cir.1986) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). This is an open question for plaintiff 

because she is using a Tennessee address in the header and signature block of the Complaint, Dkt. 

No. 1 at 1, 37, 38, but alleges she is a “resident[]” of Alameda County, California. Id. at ¶¶ 8, 21. 

Shaw also fails to allege the citizenship of defendant Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (“Ocwen”). 

Plaintiff alleges only that Ocwen “is a national association organized outside the state of 

California.” Id. at ¶ 13. This is too vague a basis for establishing diversity citizenship because

“partnerships, LLC’s and other unincorporated associations are citizens of every state of which its 

owners/members are citizens.” Moss v. Infinity Ins. Co., No. 15-CV-03456-JSC, 2015 WL 

7351395, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2015) (citing Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 

F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006)). Shaw provides no information of any kind about the citizenship of 

any of Ocwen’s members, and no allegation that their citizenship differs from hers. The complaint 

fails to lay the foundation for diversity jurisdiction and consequently must be dismissed. 

Case 3:15-cv-01755-JD Document 40 Filed 02/01/16 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Shaw may try to amend the complaint with proper diversity allegations by March 1, 2016. 

It is possible that Shaw may not be able to obtain definitive information about the citizenship of 

Owcen’s members. If so, the Ninth Circuit provides that the plaintiff may “plead its jurisdictional 

allegations as to those defendants on information and belief and without affirmatively asserting 

those defendants’ citizenship.” Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Team Equip., Inc., 741 F.3d 1082, 1086 

(9th Cir. 2014). If plaintiff pleads under this standard, and defendants challenge the Complaint for 

lack of jurisdiction, defendants should provide the Court with evidence about their citizenship. 

See id. at 1088. If plaintiff chooses to amend, she should also clearly allege the state in which she 

is domiciled. 

For the benefit of the parties in avoiding unnecessary motion work if plaintiff should 

amend, the Court notes that plaintiff’s allegation of the amount in controversy is acceptable. 

Plaintiff expressly alleges that “[t]he amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00.” Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 

23. That is all she needs to say and specific facts supporting that allegation are not required under 

Section 1332(a). See Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547, 553

(2014) (“When a plaintiff invokes federal-court jurisdiction, the plaintiff’s amount-in-controversy 

allegation is accepted if made in good faith”). Defendants’ papers also suggest that plaintiff 

obtained the property at issue in this litigation through a loan in the amount of $402,500. See, e.g., 

Dkt. No. 14-1, Exh. A at 2. Because the plaintiff’s complaint seeks to enjoin defendants from 

foreclosing on the subject property, the amount in controversy in this action should measure at 

least $402,500. See Reyes v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 10-1667, 2010 WL 2629785, at *4 

(N.D. Cal. June 29, 2010) (stating, “If the primary purpose of a lawsuit is to enjoin a bank from 

selling or transferring property, then the property is the object of the litigation,” and collecting 

cases); see also Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Adver. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 347 (1977) (“In actions 

seeking declaratory or injunctive relief, it is well established that the amount in controversy is 

measured by the value of the object of the litigation.”)

CONCLUSION

The Court dismisses plaintiff’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff 

may file an amended complaint not later than March 1, 2016. Plaintiff may amend only the 

Case 3:15-cv-01755-JD Document 40 Filed 02/01/16 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

jurisdiction and citizenship allegations; she cannot add any new claims or parties, or reassert the 

claims or arguments “related to securitization” that she has abandoned. Dkt. No. 37 at 2. 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied without prejudice to renewal if warranted in response to 

plaintiff’s amended complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 1, 2016

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01755-JD Document 40 Filed 02/01/16 Page 4 of 4