Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00838/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00838-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mike Manzella
Defendant
Richard Pomares
Plaintiff
Anthony Drew Rowe
Defendant
Mary Sutter
Defendant
Ridge Sutter
Defendant
Sutter Family Corporation
Defendant
The Law Offices of Anthony Drew Rowe
Defendant

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD POMARES,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUTTER FAMILY CORPORATION, et 

al.,

Defendants.

1:15-cv-00838 MJS 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

DISMISS COMPLAINT

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Richard Pomares ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, filed his complaint 

against defendants Sutter Family Corporation, Mike Manzella, Ridge Sutter, Mary Sutter, 

Anthony Drew Rowe, and The Law Offices of Anthony Drew Rowe ("Defendants"). He 

seeks relief under the Federal Declaratory Judgement Act ("DJA"). His claims arise out 

of actions connected to the lease of his residence and a resulting unlawful detainer 

action in state court. (Complaint, ECF No. 1.) 

Because Plaintiff fails to raise a federal question or show complete diversity 

among the parties, he lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and his complaint must be 

dismissed. 

Case 1:15-cv-00838-LJO-MJS Document 6 Filed 10/30/15 Page 1 of 5
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

II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must conduct an initial review of 

this complaint for sufficiency to state a claim. The Court must dismiss a complaint or 

portion thereof if it determines that the action has raised claims that are legally "frivolous 

or malicious," "fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted," or that seek 

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B). "Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have 

been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . 

the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

III. FACTUAL SUMMARY

The dispute arises out of a lease to Plaintiff's residence in Modesto, California. 

Plaintiff asserts that he entered into a lease agreement with property manager 

Defendant Mike Manzella. (Compl., ¶ 15.) Manzella, possibly acting on behalf of other 

named Defendants, brought an unlawful detainer action against Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶ 17.) 

Attorney Defendant Rowe was hired to litigate the case. (Id. at ¶¶ 17-18.) Plaintiff 

attended a hearing in the unlawful detainer action and entered into a settlement 

agreement which, among other things, required that he vacate the premises. (Id. at ¶¶ 

22-23.) However, Plaintiff asserts that he entered the agreement under duress and in 

response to Defendant Rowe's threats to report criminal charges against him. (Id.)

Plaintiff asserts that the settlement terms Rowe presented to the state court were false.

(Id. at ¶¶ 23-27.) The state court issued writs of possession to Defendants and a writ to 

vacate to Plaintiff. (Id.) The writs were to be executed on June 3, 2015. (Id.)

Plaintiff filed the instant action with this Court on June 2, 2015. He seeks 

declaratory relief finding the state court judgment void and declaring that all money paid

by Plaintiff to Defendants for the lease of the property resulted from theft and extortion. 

(Id.) 

///

Case 1:15-cv-00838-LJO-MJS Document 6 Filed 10/30/15 Page 2 of 5
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

IV. ANALYSIS

A. Lack of Jurisdiction and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and lack inherent or general 

subject matter jurisdiction. Federal courts can adjudicate only those cases authorized by 

the United States Constitution and Congress. Generally, such cases involve diversity of

citizenship or a federal question, or cases in which the United States is a party. 

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 128 L. Ed. 2d 391 

(1994); Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545, 109 S. Ct. 2003, 104 L. Ed. 2d 593 (1989). 

Federal courts are presumptively without jurisdiction over civil actions. Kokkonen, 511 

U.S. at 377. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction is never waived and may be raised by the 

Court sua sponte. Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Prods., Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-

95 (9th Cir. 1996). "Nothing is to be more jealously guarded by a court than its 

jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is what its power rests upon. Without jurisdiction it is nothing." In 

re Mooney, 841 F.2d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 1988).

1. Federal Question Jurisdiction

Under federal question jurisdiction, district courts are authorized to exercise 

original jurisdiction in "all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of 

the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A civil action can "arise under" federal law in two 

ways. Gunn v. Minton, U.S. , 133 S. Ct. 1059, 1064, 185 L. Ed. 2d 72 (2013). Most 

directly, "a case arises under federal law when federal law creates the cause of action 

asserted." Id. If, however, a claim finds its origins in state rather than federal law, federal 

jurisdiction will lie only "if a federal issue is: (1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed, 

(3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the 

federal-state balance approved by Congress." Id.; see also Grable & Sons Metal 

Products, Inc. v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 314, 125 S. Ct. 2363, 162 L. Ed. 2d 

257 (2005). With respect to declaratory judgment claims, "it is settled law that "[t]he 

operation of the Declaratory Judgment Act is procedural only and does not confer arising 

under jurisdiction." California Shock Trauma Air Rescue v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 636 

Case 1:15-cv-00838-LJO-MJS Document 6 Filed 10/30/15 Page 3 of 5
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

4

F.3d 538, 543 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 339 U.S. 

667, 671, 70 S. Ct. 876, 94 L. Ed. 1194 (1950)). As such, courts look to the subject 

matter of the underlying dispute to determine jurisdiction over declaratory judgment 

claims. Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, 134 S. Ct. 843, 848, 187 L. 

Ed. 2d 703 (2014).

Here, Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment relating to the terms of his lease and a 

settlement of an unlawful detainer action initiated against him by Defendants. (See

generally, Compl.) To the extent that Plaintiff is challenging the terms of the agreements 

with Defendants or any improper inducement into the agreements, those claims rely on 

state breach of contract and fraud claims, and do not form a basis for federal question 

jurisdiction. Plaintiff has not alleged any other federal basis for his complaint. 

Accordingly, even though Plaintiff presents his claim under the Federal DJA, he has not 

established that the underlying claims are based on a federal question. Plaintiff has not 

established subject matter jurisdiction based on the nature of the claims presented.

2. Diversity Jurisdiction

As described above, it appears that Plaintiffs underlying legal claims are founded 

in contract, tort, or other state law. Such state law claims can proceed in federal court 

only if Plaintiff properly alleges diversity jurisdiction. "Section 1332 of Title 28 confers 

jurisdiction on federal courts where there is diversity of citizenship between plaintiffs and 

defendants. Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between the parties—each 

defendant must be a citizen of a different state from each plaintiff." Diaz v. Davis (In re 

Digimarc Corp. Derivative Litig.), 549 F.3d 1223, 1234 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Strawbridge 

v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 267, 2 L. Ed. 435 (1806)). 

Plaintiff has not properly alleged diversity of citizenship. Plaintiff states that he is a 

resident of California. (Compl., ¶ 4.) Plaintiff alleges that but for not knowing the principle 

place of business of Defendant Sutter Family Corporation, the remaining defendants are

residents of California. (Id. ¶¶ 5-9.) As both Plaintiff and many, if not all, of the 

Defendants reside in California, there is not complete diversity of the parties. Plaintiff has 

Case 1:15-cv-00838-LJO-MJS Document 6 Filed 10/30/15 Page 4 of 5
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

5

not established subject matter jurisdiction and this Court may not adjudicate the claims 

presented. 

V. RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, it is hereby recommended that the complaint be dismissed. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned District Judge, 

pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days after 

being served with the Findings and Recommendation, 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 Recommendation." Any reply 

to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the 

objections. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 

waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 

839 (9th Cir. 2014).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 30, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00838-LJO-MJS Document 6 Filed 10/30/15 Page 5 of 5