Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01967/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01967-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract

---

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 - 10CV1967

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL EVANS DISCH,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10CV1967 JLS (NLS)

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

DISMISS

(Doc. No. 6.)

vs.

GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION,

LLC, and DOES 1–20,

Defendant.

Presently before the Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 6 (Mot. to

Dismiss).) Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s response in opposition (Doc. No. 9), and

Defendant’s reply in support. (Doc. No. 10.) A hearing on this matter is set for February 24,

2011. The Court finds Defendant’s motion suitable for decision without oral argument. Civil Rule

7.1.d.1. After consideration, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss. 

Plaintiff initiated suit on September 21, 2010. (Doc. No. 1 (Compl.).) The gravamen of

Plaintiff’s complaint centers around refinancing his property. And his complaint alleges three

causes of action: 1) Breach of Contract, 2) Unreasonable Delay and Bad Faith, and 3) Negligence. 

Defendant moves this Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint, making several arguments in the

process. The Court considers just one here: lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

This Court’s subject matter jurisdiction arises through the presence of a federal question or

diversity jurisdiction. Neither is present here.

Case 3:10-cv-01967-JLS-NLS Document 11 Filed 02/10/11 Page 1 of 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

- 2 - 10CV1967

To determine whether federal question jurisdiction exists, the Court looks to the plaintiff’s

complaint. Holmes Grp., Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 US 826, 830 (2002). The

Court does not consider the defendant’s answer, defenses, or counterclaims. Id. 831. In this case,

Plaintiff puts forth causes of action for breach of contract, unreasonable delay and bad faith, and

negligence. None of these arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28

U.S.C. § 1331. Thus, the Court finds no basis to assert federal question jurisdiction. 

The second basis for subject matter jurisdiction is diversity jurisdiction. Diversity

jurisdiction requires that the plaintiffs and defendants be of different citizenship and that the

amount in controversy exceed $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff fails to allege each parties’

citizenship and the amount in controversy, and the Court finds no basis to assert diversity

jurisdiction. See Rilling v. Burlington Northern R.R. Co., 909 F.2d 399, 400–01 (9th Cir. 1990). 

Plaintiff has failed to establish that this case falls within the limited jurisdiction of this

Court. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). As a result, the

Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff if it wishes, SHALL file an amended complaint within

fourteen days of the day this order is electronically docketed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 10, 2011

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01967-JLS-NLS Document 11 Filed 02/10/11 Page 2 of 2