Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02092/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02092-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
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

SAID MAJLESSI, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

PUBLIC STORAGE CO., et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No.: 15-CV-2092 YGR

ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 5, 11, 12 

On June 1, 2015, an order was entered granting plaintiff Said Majlessi’s motion to proceed 

in forma pauperis, denying his motion to appoint counsel, and dismissing his complaint with leave 

to amend. (Dkt. No. 5.) The Court adopts the portions of that order with respect to plaintiff’s in 

forma pauperis status1

 and his motion to appoint counsel. The dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint is 

VACATED. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). 

 The Court concurs in the conclusion that plaintiff has failed to allege that this Court has 

subject matter jurisdiction over his claims: 

There does not appear to [be] any basis for federal question 

jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Nor does there seem to be any 

basis for diversity jurisdiction, as the amount in controversy likely 

falls below the $75,000 threshold. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). This 

alone warrants dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint. See Majestic Ins. 

Co. v. Allianz Intern. Ins. Co.., 133 F.Supp.2d 1218, 1220 (N.D.Cal. 

2001) (“Federal courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction. They 

are restricted as to what cases they may adjudicate and they may 

exercise jurisdiction only if it is specifically authorized.”). 

(Dkt. No. 5). Federal Courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, unlike state courts. Here, it appears 

that the claims should be brought in state court, not federal court. Because the Court cannot discern 

 1

 A separate order directing the Clerk to issue summons shall follow if plaintiff properly 

amends his complaint to allege subject matter jurisdiction, as discussed below. 

Case 4:15-cv-02092-YGR Document 16 Filed 11/05/15 Page 1 of 2
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 

a basis for subject matter jurisdiction based on plaintiff’s current pleading, plaintiff is ORDERED to 

amend his complaint to allege subject matter jurisdiction. The complaint does not appear to bring 

claims arising under federal law, nor does it allege diversity of citizenship properly. In particular, 

plaintiff must address adequately the issue regarding the “amount in controversy.” See 28 U.S.C. § 

1332(a)(1). It is insufficient to merely allege a request for “$100,000” on the cover sheet, as this 

appears to be a case related to goods lost in a fire and plaintiff has also submitted a declaration 

under penalty of perjury that he qualifies for in forma pauperis status. It is not clear how the loss of 

goods exceeds $75,000. Plaintiff must also address the citizenship of the parties so the Court may 

determine if complete diversity exists. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to amend his complaint (Dkt. No. 

11) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file his amended complaint, which shall state with particularity the 

basis on which plaintiff is invoking the Court’s jurisdiction, no later than December 1, 2015. 

Plaintiff is cautioned that his amended complaint shall not attempt to convert his case into a 

class action. (See Dkt. No. 11.) Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and cannot represent others without 

an attorney. 

Further, plaintiff’s motion to have all hearings held in San Francisco is DENIED. No 

hearings are currently noticed in this matter and such request is therefore premature. 

In light of his pro se status, plaintiff may wish to seek assistance from the Legal Help 

Center, a free service of the Volunteer Legal Services Program, by calling 415.782.9000 x8657 or 

signing up for an appointment on the 15th Floor of the San Francisco Courthouse, Room 2796. At 

the Legal Help Center, plaintiff may speak with an attorney who may be able to provide basic legal 

help, but not legal representation. The Court also urges plaintiff to obtain a copy of the Pro Se 

Handbook, available free of charge from the Court’s website (www.cand.uscourts.gov) or in the 

Clerk’s Office. 

This Order terminates Docket Nos. 11, 12. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: November 5, 2015 _______________________________________ 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:15-cv-02092-YGR Document 16 Filed 11/05/15 Page 2 of 2