Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02883/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02883-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331(a) Fed. Question: Real Property

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

15 111',[; I 3 fllj II : 2 I 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

.,.IlOEPU-! '/ 

10 ANASTASIA HELENE KIRKEBY, CASE NO. 14-CV-2883-BEN (NLS) 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

Plaintiff, ORDER: 

vs. 

LARRY BURNS aka LAWRENCE F. 

BURZYNSKI, et ai., 

Defendants. 

(1) GRANTING MOTION TO 

DlSMISS FOR LACK OF 

JURISDICTION 

(2) DENYING MOTION TO 

DlSMISS FOR FAILURE TO 

STATE A CLAIM AS MOOT 

(3) GRANTING PLAINTIFF 

LEAVE TO FILE SECOND 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

[Docket Nos. 18, 26, 30] 

19 Before this Court is a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed by 

20 Defendants JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., and California Reconveyance Company. 

21 (Docket No. 26.) 

22 BACKGROUND 

23 On December 5,2014, Mrs. Kirkeby brought this action asserting multiple 

24 claims against five defendants. (Docket No. 1.) On January 12,2015, Plaintiff 

25 Anastasia Kirkeby filed a First Amended Complaint asserting seven state law 

26 claims: (1) violation of California Penal Code § 529, (2) California Civil Code § 

27 3426, (3) California Penal Code § 502, (4) breach of the duty ofloyalty and aiding 

28 and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, (5) conversion, (6) intentional interference 

- 1 - 14cv2883 

Case 3:14-cv-02883-BEN-RBB Document 36 Filed 03/13/15 Page 1 of 4
1 with a contract, (7) California Business and Professions Code § 17200. Mrs. 

2 Kirkeby's First Amended Complaint removed three defendants and added three new 

3 defendants. She also added her husband, Glenn Kirkeby, as a co-plaintiff. 

4 DISCUSSION 

5 I. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction 

6 Defendants JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., and California Reconveyance 

7 Company argue this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs case. 

8 Plaintiff filed an Opposition. 

9 A. Federal Ouestion Jurisdiction 

10 District courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions arising "under the 

11 Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

12 Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint alleges that Defendants violated seven 

13 California state laws. 1 Because the Complaint alleges no federal claims, this Court 

14 does not have federal question jurisdiction over this matter. 

15 B. Diversity Jurisdiction 

16 District courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions where (1) the 

17 amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, and (2) there is complete diversity of 

18 citizenship. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Complete diversity of citizenship exists where no 

19 plaintiff is from the same state as any Defendant. Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chern. 

20 Co., 443 F.3d 676,679 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah 

21 Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (2005». 

22 Complete diversity does not exist here. Plaintiff alleges that she and her 

23 husband are citizens of California. She alleges that Defendant Larry Burns or 

24 Lawrence Burzynski is also a citizen of California. Because at least one plaintiff is 

25 

26 IPlaintiffbriefly mentions a criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1001 in attempt to 

support her claim that Defendants violated California Penal Cooe § 529. (FAC 19.) 

27 Section 1001 is a criminal statute which provides no private right of action. Willems 

v. Apartmentlnv. & Mgmt. Co., 72 F. App'x 700,701 {9th Cir. 2'003). In the eventthis 

28 mention of section 1001 should be construed as a claim against Defendants, the claim 

is dismissed with prejudice. 

-2- 14cv2883 

Case 3:14-cv-02883-BEN-RBB Document 36 Filed 03/13/15 Page 2 of 4
" 

1 a citizen of the same state of at least one defendant, this Court does not have 

2 diversity jurisdiction over this case. 

3 Plaintiff failed to establish this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this 

4 action. The Court therefore GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of 

5 Jurisdiction. 

6 II. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend 

7 On February 19,2015, Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File a 

8 Second Amended Complaint. (Docket No. 30.) Defendants filed an Opposition. 

9 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, courts "should freely give 

10 leave when justice so requires." 

11 Plaintiff contends that a second amended complaint will enable her to show 

12 that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. She also claims that 

13 "newly discovered evidence" necessitates addition of new claims and the identity of 

14 doe defendants. 

15 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend is GRANTED. Plaintiff may add Mr. 

16 Kirkeby as co-plaintiff and new claims against Defendants. However, Plaintiff must 

17 take care to cure the deficiencies pointed out in this Court's order. The Court also 

18 cautions Plaintiff to make her best effort to include all possible claims against all 

19 defendants in the Second Amended Complaint. 

20 Further, as the Court has stated in previous orders, Plaintiff has provided no 

21 reason to file motions without giving notice to Defendants. Any future ex parte 

22 motions from Plaintiff will not be accepted. 

23 CONCLUSION 

24 Finding this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear this action, 

25 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is GRANTED. Plaintiff's 

26 Motion to file a Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED. If Plaintiff believes 

27 she can cure the deficiencies in the previous complaints, Plaintiff is ORDERED to 

28 file any Second Amended Complaint on or before April 15. 2015. Finally, 

- 3 - 14cv2883 

Case 3:14-cv-02883-BEN-RBB Document 36 Filed 03/13/15 Page 3 of 4
1 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim (Docket No. 18) is 

2 DENIED as moot. The action is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk may 

3 close the case. 

4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

; ])"ted''',",~2015 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

- 4- 14cv2883 

Case 3:14-cv-02883-BEN-RBB Document 36 Filed 03/13/15 Page 4 of 4