Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00867/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00867-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

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

CINDY GUTIERREZ,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 15cv0867-WQH-RBB

ORDER

vs.

HERTZ CORP.,

Defendant.

HAYES, J:

The matters before the Court are the motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP)

(ECF No. 2) and the motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 3) filed by

Plaintiff Cindy Gutierrez. 

On April 20, 2015, Plaintiff Cindy Gutierrez commenced this action by filing the

Complaint (ECF No. 1), the motion to proceed IFP (ECF No. 2), and the motion for the

appointment of counsel (ECF No. 3). 

I. Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 2)

All parties instituting a civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the

United States, other than a petition for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of

$400.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 4.5. An action may proceed

despite a party’s failure to pay only if the party is granted leave to proceed in forma

pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177

(9th Cir. 1999). “To proceed in forma pauperis is a privilege not a right.” Smart v.

Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965).

- 1 - 15cv0867-WQH-RBB

Case 3:15-cv-00867-WQH-RBB Document 4 Filed 04/23/15 Page 1 of 4
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

In Plaintiff’s accompanying affidavit, Plaintiff states that she is not currently

employed and has not been employed since 2013. Plaintiff states that her only source

of income is through CalFresh benefits. Plaintiff states that she does not hold a

checking account or any other accounts, or own any valuable property or other assets. 

After considering Plaintiff’s motion and accompanying affidavit, the Court

concludes that Plaintiff is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly,

Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 

II. Initial Screening of the Complaint

A complaint filed by any person proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a) is also subject to mandatory review and sua sponte dismissal to the

extent it “is frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted;

or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 (9th Cir. 2000)

(en banc). 

Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of consumers. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant

Hertz Corp. has a discriminatory policy of requiring persons of perceived Hispanic

descent to provide social security numbers prior to renting such persons automobiles. 

Plaintiff alleges that when she went to a Hertz location in Fountain Valley, she was

asked to read her social security number out loud, while present non-Hispanic

customers were not asked for their social security numbers. Plaintiff asserts a claim for

violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code section 51.

Federal courts—unlike state courts—are courts of limited jurisdiction and lack

inherent or general subject matter jurisdiction. Federal courts can only adjudicate those

cases in which the United States Constitution and Congress authorize them to

adjudicate. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). In the

federal courts, subject matter jurisdiction may arise from either “federal question

jurisdiction” or “diversity jurisdiction.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392

(1987); see also 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331-32. To invoke diversity jurisdiction, the complaint

- 2 - 15cv0867-WQH-RBB

Case 3:15-cv-00867-WQH-RBB Document 4 Filed 04/23/15 Page 2 of 4
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

must allege that “the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000,

exclusive of interest and costs, and is between ... citizens of different States ... [or]

citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state....” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 

To invoke federal question jurisdiction, the complaint must allege that the “action[]

aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. §

1331. To invoke jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), the

complaint must allege that “the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of

$5,000,000” and that “any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different

from any defendant....” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). 

The Complaint asserts a single state-law claim for violation of the Unruh Civil

Rights Act and no federal claims. The Complaint does not allege that diversity

jurisdiction or CAFA jurisdiction exists in this case. Specifically, the Complaint does

not allege the citizenship of either Plaintiff or Defendant. The Court concludes that the

Complaint must be dismissed because it fails to allege a basis for federal court subjectmatter jurisdiction. 

III. Motion for the Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 3)

In light of the Court’s dismissal of the Complaint, Plaintiff’s motion for the

appointment of counsel is denied as moot. 

///

- 3 - 15cv0867-WQH-RBB

Case 3:15-cv-00867-WQH-RBB Document 4 Filed 04/23/15 Page 3 of 4
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

IV. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) is

GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Complaint is DISMISSED without

prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e). No later than thirty (30) days from

the date of this Order, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint, which shall be titled,

“First Amended Complaint,” and which shall comply with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and adequately allege a basis for subject-matter jurisdiction. If Plaintiff does

not file a First Amended Complaint within that time, the Clerk of the Court shall close

the case without further order of the Court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for the appointment of counsel

(ECF No. 3) is DENIED as moot. 

DATED: April 23, 2015

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 4 - 15cv0867-WQH-RBB

Case 3:15-cv-00867-WQH-RBB Document 4 Filed 04/23/15 Page 4 of 4