Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04644/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04644-0/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

LATONYA FINLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-04644-KAW 

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff, acting pro se, commenced the above-captioned case on October 7, 2015. 

(Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) She also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (IFP App., Dkt. 

No. 3.) The Court granted Plaintiff's IFP application on October 20, 2015. (Order, Dkt. No. 6.) 

On January 25, 2016, Plaintiff consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(c). (Pl.'s Consent, Dkt. No. 10.)

In her complaint, Plaintiff asserts claims for breach of contract, negligence, and "warranty 

of merchantability." (Compl. ¶¶ 7-20.) Plaintiff alleges that this Court has jurisdiction over these 

claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (See id. at 2.) That statute grants federal courts jurisdiction 

over actions where (1) the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000, exclusive of 

interests and costs, and (2) the parties are completely diverse—i.e., citizens of different states. 28 

U.S.C. § 1332.

Based on the allegations in Plaintiff's complaint, it appears neither requirement is met here. 

First, Plaintiff makes no allegations regarding the amount in controversy. The only reference to 

any dollar amount in the complaint concerns a $50,000 bond, the amount of which falls below the 

jurisdictional threshold, and it is unclear how the bond relates to Plaintiff's claims for relief. 

(Compl. ¶ 8.) Second, the parties do not appear to be completely diverse. Plaintiff alleges that she 

Case 4:15-cv-04644-KAW Document 11 Filed 02/26/16 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 California

is a resident of Alameda County, that Great American Insurance Company is an individual doing 

business in Cincinnati, Ohio, and that Defendant Autostar is an individual doing business in San 

Mateo. To the extent Plaintiff wishes to sue Jahangir Mokhtari, the individual who appears to be 

doing business as Autostar, she has not sufficiently alleged facts establishing his citizenship for 

the purposes of diversity jurisdiction. See Arellano v. Vogel, No. C 10-4534, PJH 2010 WL 

5148292, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2010) ("An individual's state of citizenship, by contrast, is 

determined by the state in which the individual is domiciled."). Nor has she done so with respect 

to any corporate entity she wishes to name as a defendant. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1)

(identifying bases for citizenship of corporations and insurers). The allegations in the complaint, 

therefore, fail to establish that there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties to this 

action and that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied. Accordingly, Plaintiff's 

complaint is subject to dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Plaintiff's complaint also includes allegations concerning a related state court proceeding in 

which default was entered against Autostar. (Compl. ¶ 7.) Autostar apparently moved to set aside 

the default, and Plaintiff "now files a federal complaint as [sic] due process violations, fraud upon 

the court and failure of the clerk of the court to file documents upon receipt of documents; making 

any judgment enter [sic] void." (Id.) To the extent Plaintiff's complaint purports to challenge the 

outcome of the state court proceedings, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprives the Court of 

jurisdiction in that instance. See Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 896 (9th Cir. 2003) 

("Under Rooker-Feldman, a federal district court is without subject matter jurisdiction to hear an 

appeal from the judgment of a state court."). Subject matter jurisdiction, therefore, would not exist 

for this additional reason.

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO 

AMEND. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within 30 days of this order. So that Plaintiff 

is better able to remedy the deficiencies discussed above, the Court encourages Plaintiff to contact 

the Federal Pro Bono Project for free limited legal assistance. Plaintiff may schedule an 

appointment calling the appointment line at (415) 782-8982 or by signing up for an appointment in 

the appointment book located outside the San Francisco or Oakland Legal Help Center office. 

Case 4:15-cv-04644-KAW Document 11 Filed 02/26/16 Page 2 of 3
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

Appointments are held Monday through Friday at various times throughout the day. Plaintiff can 

speak with an attorney who will provide basic legal help, but not legal representation. If, after 

consulting with the Federal Pro Bono Project, Plaintiff believes she cannot file an amended 

complaint that complies with this order, she may file a voluntary dismissal instead of filing an 

amended complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 02/26/2016

______________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:15-cv-04644-KAW Document 11 Filed 02/26/16 Page 3 of 3