Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02596/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02596-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1345 Foreclosure

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KHALID KHAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

U. S. BANK NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-2596 KJM CKD PS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

By order filed June 5, 2014, this matter was reopened and referred to the undersigned for 

further proceedings. This matter is proceeding on the first amended complaint filed on February 

10, 2014. In the amended complaint, plaintiff complains about an allegedly wrongful foreclosure. 

Plaintiff alleges only state law claims. The amended complaint does not allege a basis for subject 

matter jurisdiction in this court. The federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. In the 

absence of a basis for federal jurisdiction, plaintiff’s claims cannot proceed in this venue. 

Because plaintiff is proceeding on only state law claims, it appears that the only proper 

basis for jurisdiction would sound in diversity. Named in the amended complaint are three 

defendants. Although it appears from the articles of incorporation filed on June 12, 2014 (ECF 

No. 21) that defendant U.S. Bank National Association may be diverse, the amended complaint is 

devoid of allegations regarding the citizenship of any of the defendants. In order to properly 

Case 2:13-cv-02596-KJM-CKD Document 25 Filed 07/08/14 Page 1 of 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

2

invoke subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the citizenship of all defendants must 

be diverse from the citizenship of plaintiff and the matter in controversy must exceed the sum or 

value of $75,000. Plaintiff pleads neither requirement. Because no basis for federal subject 

matter jurisdiction was evident in the amended complaint, plaintiff was ordered to show cause 

why this action should not be dismissed and cautioned that failure to allege a proper basis for 

subject matter jurisdiction would result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed.

On July 1, 2014, plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause in which he asserted 

that defendant S.A. Challenger, Inc. is a Minnesota Corporation. Plaintiff did not address the 

citizenship of the remaining named defendant, T.D. Service Company. Without leave of court, 

and in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, plaintiff filed a second amended 

complaint. Although the caption of the second amended complaint omits defendant T.D. Service 

Company, the second amended complaint refers to this entity as a defendant and alleges it is a coconspirator with the remaining defendants. The court takes judicial notice of the records of the 

California Secretary of State, which indicate T.D. Service Company, entity number C0477530, is 

registered as an active California corporation, with the entity address the same as listed in the 

exhibits to plaintiff’s original complaint. See ECF No. 1 at p. 21. It is apparent from the 

allegations of the second amended complaint that plaintiff has simply omitted the non-diverse 

defendant from the caption as a ploy to invoke diversity jurisdiction but intends to proceed on 

claims against this non-diverse defendant.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 

/////

/////

Case 2:13-cv-02596-KJM-CKD Document 25 Filed 07/08/14 Page 2 of 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

3

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: July 7, 2014

4 khan-usbank2596.3.nosmj.57

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:13-cv-02596-KJM-CKD Document 25 Filed 07/08/14 Page 3 of 3