Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02130/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02130-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity Action

---

1

18cv2130-LAB (MDD)

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

SYLVIA SANTOS,

Plaintiff,

v.

OFFICE DEPOT INC. , et al.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18cv2130-LAB (MDD)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS; AND

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

After Plaintiff Sylvia Santos’ complaint was dismissed in case 18cv506-LAB 

(MDD), Santos v. Office Depot, she refiled it as a new case, attempting to correct 

jurisdictional defects that she had failed to correct earlier. Because it was related 

to the earlier case, this new case was transferred as provided by this District’s rules 

to the undersigned judge. She also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis

(“IFP”), using a form.

IFP Motion

Santos’ IFP motion says for the past year, she received $6,444 per month in 

retirement benefits, and no income from any other source. She added that she 

expects to receive $537 next month. She gives her monthly expenses as $554. 

She says she pays nothing for housing or utilities, and that her son is temporarily 

paying for those. But she doesn’t include any gifts from her son or anyone else 

Case 3:18-cv-02130-LAB-MDD Document 6 Filed 10/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18cv2130-LAB (MDD)

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

among her income. Santos’ estimate of her past monthly income at $6,444 may 

be a mistake. But it is one that she has been warned about earlier. (See Docket 

no. 11 in case 18cv506, at 2 n.1 (pointing out that Santos said her monthly income 

was $13,260).) 

Santos also filed a supplement saying she received a settlement payment of

$12,500. Her IFP application made no mention of any assets, including other 

lawsuits or claims she might be receiving payments from. Her supplement says 

that after paying her expenses and setting aside money for medical care, she has 

$3,000 that she could use to pay the filing fee. She asks the Court to decide 

whether she should pay the fee.

Santos’ supplement and IFP motion are too incomplete. It is possible she 

would qualify to proceed IFP if she included all the information that was requested 

on the form she used. But she is in the best position to know whether she can pay 

the filing fee, or some part of it, and still provide herself with the necessities of life. 

See Williams v. Latins, 877 F.2d 65, 65 (9th Cir. 1989). Until she provides facts to 

make that clear, leave to proceed IFP will be denied. 

Among other things, any new IFP motion Santos files must correctly say what 

her monthly income is. It must include income from any source, including gifts

(which is one of the categories of income listed on the form) or payments from 

lawsuits. And it must name all valuable assets, including any other claims for 

money that she may have.

Jurisdiction

Santos relies on diversity jurisdiction, alleging that Defendant Office Depot, 

Inc. has its principal place of business in Florida. But a corporation is a citizen 

both of the state where it has its principal place of business and the state where it 

is incorporated. See 28 U.S.C. ' 1332(c)(1). The complaint does not allege the 

state where Office Depot is incorporated. Santos has therefore not pled facts 

establishing diversity jurisdiction, and the complaint must be dismissed for that 

Case 3:18-cv-02130-LAB-MDD Document 6 Filed 10/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18cv2130-LAB (MDD)

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

reason. See Sollenne Family Trust v. CMG Mortgage, Inc., 691 Fed. Appx. 857, 

857–58 (9th Cir. 2017) (affirming dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, where plaintiffs 

failed to allege facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction). But because she may be 

able to amend to show jurisdiction, she will be given an opportunity to do so.

This is not the first time Santos has brought these claims. In case 18cv506-

LAB (MDD), she sued both Office Depot and its manager. Before dismissing that 

case, the Court several times pointed out to Santos various problems with her 

complaint. Before amending, she should review the Court’s rulings in that case 

and make sure she has corrected the defects the Court pointed out to her. If she 

fails to do so, the Court will assume it is because she cannot.

Within 35 calendar days of the date this order is issued, Santos must 

either file an amended and complete IFP application, or pay the filing fee. She 

must also file an amended complaint that alleges facts showing Office Depot’s 

citizenship. Her amended complaint must correct problems that the Court 

identified in the earlier case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 19, 2018

Hon. Larry Alan Burns

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-02130-LAB-MDD Document 6 Filed 10/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3