Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03321/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03321-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Insurance Contract

---

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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LATONYA R. FINLEY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 15-cv-03321-DMR 

ORDER REASSIGNING CASE TO 

DISTRICT JUDGE; REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT IFP 

APPLICATION AND DISMISS CASE 

FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER 

JURISDICTION 

Re: Docket No. 2 

Plaintiff filed a Complaint [Docket No. 1] and Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 

(“IFP Application”) [Docket No. 2] on July 17, 2015. Because Plaintiff did not consent to the 

jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the court issues this Report and 

Recommendation and reassigns this case to a District Judge for final disposition. The court 

recommends that the District Judge grant the IFP application, and dismiss the case for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction. 

I. IFP APPLICATION 

 Having evaluated Plaintiff’s financial affidavit, the court finds that Plaintiff has satisfied 

the economic eligibility requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and recommends that the IFP 

Application be granted. 

II. REVIEW OF COMPLAINT 

 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and a “federal court is presumed to lack 

jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” Stock W., Inc. v. 

Confederated Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted). “If the court 

determines at any time that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 

Case 3:15-cv-03321-CRB Document 6 Filed 08/10/15 Page 1 of 3
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 Californi

a

A federal court properly may exercise federal question jurisdiction, which is governed by 

28 U.S.C. § 1331. Section 1331 provides, “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of 

all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” “[T]he 

presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint 

rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on 

the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Rivet v. Regions Bank of La., 522 U.S. 

470, 475 (1998) (quotations omitted). In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that she held a car 

insurance policy issued by Defendant Allstate, and that Defendant refused to inspect damage to 

Plaintiff’s car and make certain payments as required by the insurance policy. Compl. at ¶¶ 7, 9. 

Plaintiff brings only state law causes of action for breach of contract, breach of the implied 

covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and negligence. Thus, the Complaint raises no federal 

questions and subject matter jurisdiction cannot be based on 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

The Complaint alleges that the court has subject matter jurisdiction based on the diversity 

of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Compl. at ¶ 6. A district court has diversity 

jurisdiction where the parties are diverse and “the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value 

of $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Here, Plaintiff has failed to 

allege the bases for diversity jurisdiction since the Complaint alleges that both Plaintiff and 

Defendant reside in California, and makes no allegations regarding the amount in controversy. 

Pro se pleadings are liberally construed and held to a less stringent standard than those 

drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). Accordingly, “a district 

court should not dismiss a pro se complaint without leave to amend unless it is absolutely clear 

that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.” Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 

F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012) (quotations omitted). The court therefore recommends that the 

District Judge dismiss the complaint with leave to amend the deficiencies discussed herein. 

III. CONCLUSION 

 For the reasons above, the court recommends that Plaintiff’s IFP application be granted 

and that the Complaint be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, with leave to amend. 

The Clerk is directed to reassign this case to a District Judge. 

Case 3:15-cv-03321-CRB Document 6 Filed 08/10/15 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

wit

N.D

Da

Any pa

thin 14 days 

D. Cal. Civ. 

IT IS S

ated: August 

arty may file 

after being 

L.R. 72-2. 

SO ORDER

10, 2015 

objections t

served with 

 

RED. 

3

to this report

a copy. See

___

DO

Un

t and recomm

e 28 U.S.C. §

__________

ONNA M. R

nited States M

mendation w

§ 636(b)(1);

___________

RYU 

Magistrate Ju

with the distr

 Fed. R. Civ

__________

udge 

rict judge 

v. P. 72(a); 

________ 

Case 3:15-cv-03321-CRB Document 6 Filed 08/10/15 Page 3 of 3