Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02889/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02889-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331tt Fed. Question: Tort Action

---

– 1 – 15cv2889 

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 

MARGO E. RICHEY-SMITH, 

 Plaintiff, 

Case No. 15-cv-2889-BAS(DHB) 

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR 

LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER 

 v. JURISDICTION 

CARL WARREN & COMPANY, 

TPA for Metro Los Angeles, 

 Defendant. 

On December 22, 2015, Plaintiff Margo E. Richey-Smith, proceeding pro se, 

filed a handwritten complaint against Defendant Carl Warren & Company, TPA for 

Metro Los Angeles, for alleged personal injuries arising from at least two separate 

bus rides. According to the civil cover sheet accompanying the complaint, Plaintiff 

filed this action based upon federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1337. 

For the following reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint is facially 

deficient and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE this action in its entirety for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Case 3:15-cv-02889-BAS-DHB Document 3 Filed 12/29/15 Page 1 of 4
 – 2 – 15cv2889 

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 

I. LEGAL STANDARD 

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life 

Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “They possess only that power authorized 

by Constitution or a statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree.” Id.

(internal citations omitted). “It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited 

jurisdiction and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting 

jurisdiction.” Id. (internal citations omitted); see also Abrego Abrego v. The Dow 

Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 684 (9th Cir. 2006). 

 “Subject matter jurisdiction based upon diversity of citizenship requires that 

no defendant have the same citizenship as any plaintiff.” Tosco Corp. v. 

Communities for a Better Env’t, 236 F.3d 495, 499 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam), 

abrogated on other grounds by Hertz Corp v. Friend, 130 S. Ct. 1181 (2010). 

Alternatively, federal district courts also have “original jurisdiction of all civil actions 

arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 

1331. “A plaintiff suing in federal court must show in his pleading, affirmatively and 

distinctly, the existence of whatever is essential to federal jurisdiction, and, if he does 

not do so, the court . . . on discovering the [defect], must dismiss the case, unless the 

defect be corrected by amendment.” Tosco, 236 F.3d at 499 (quoting Smith v. 

McCullough, 270 U.S. 456, 459 (1926)). 

 Although there has not been a request for dismissal, it is well-established that 

“a district court’s duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction is not contingent upon 

the parties’ arguments.” See United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 

360 F.3d 960, 966 (9th Cir. 2004). Courts may consider the issue sua sponte. 

Demery v. Kupperman, 735 F.2d 1139, 1149 n.8 (9th Cir. 1984). Indeed, the 

Supreme Court has emphasized that “district courts have an ‘independent obligation 

to address subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte.’” Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global 

Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 593 (2004) (quoting United States v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 

300 F. Supp. 2d 964, 972 (E.D. Cal. 2004)). 

Case 3:15-cv-02889-BAS-DHB Document 3 Filed 12/29/15 Page 2 of 4
 – 3 – 15cv2889 

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 

II. ANALYSIS 

Plaintiff asserts a claim under the “Transportation Authority Tort Liability 

Claims Act” for “Public Transportation, Injury,” and a claim for negligence. Based 

on the Court’s own research, it could not find the tort-claims statute, or a similar one, 

under federal law. Furthermore, with respect to the claim brought under the tortclaims statute, Plaintiff cites to “818.2,” “820.8,” and “Gov. Tort Claims 985,” all of 

which appear to be California statutes. It appears even more probable that these are 

California statutes based on the document attached to the complaint where Defendant 

informed Plaintiff that her claim had been rejected. That form references the 

California Government Tort Claims Act codified in the California Government Code 

§§ 900, et. seq. Based on the Court’s own research, it could not find the statute, or a 

similar one, under federal law. Because none of the claims asserted arise from the 

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, there is no federal question 

presented here. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

Assessing jurisdiction under diversity produces the same result. Though the 

complaint itself does not state the amount in controversy or citizenship of any of the 

parties, Plaintiff is associated with a Los Angeles, CA address on the claims-denial 

document attached to her complaint. That information is consistent with the civil 

cover sheet, completed and executed by Plaintiff, which indicates that both Plaintiff 

and Defendant are citizens of California. Consequently, there is no diversity of 

citizenship between the parties. See Tosco, 236 F.3d at 499. 

 Upon reviewing the complaint, attachment, and civil cover sheet, the Court 

finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction because there is no federal question 

presented in this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Similarly, had Plaintiff attempted to 

invoke this Court’s diversity jurisdiction, the Court would reach the same 

conclusion—that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction—because Plaintiff fails to 

demonstrate that she satisfies the complete-diversity-of-citizenship and amount-incontroversy requirements under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See also Tosco, 236 F.3d at 499. 

Case 3:15-cv-02889-BAS-DHB Document 3 Filed 12/29/15 Page 3 of 4
 – 4 – 15cv2889 

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 & ORDER 

Because Plaintiff does not assert a claim that presents a federal question as 

required by 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and because she fails to allege facts necessary to 

establish diversity jurisdiction as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the Court 

DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE this action in its entirety for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction. See Tosco, 236 F.3d at 499. If Plaintiff can correct these 

deficiencies in the complaint, including but not limited to explicitly identifying 

specific federal statutes invoked, she may file an amended complaint no later than 

January 19, 2016. See 28 U.S.C. § 1653. 

 In light of the dismissal, the Court also TERMINATES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s 

motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: December 28, 2015 

Case 3:15-cv-02889-BAS-DHB Document 3 Filed 12/29/15 Page 4 of 4