Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00693/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00693-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bank of America
Defendant
Chase Bank
Defendant
Wonderly Correia
Defendant
Frank Silva
Plaintiff
Wells Fargo Bank
Defendant

Document Text:

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANK SILVA,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

CHASE BANK; WONDERLY

CORREIA; BANK OF AMERICA AND 

WELLS FARGO BANK,

 Defendants.

1:16-cv-000693-DAD-EPG

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

(Doc. 3.)

I. Introduction

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this civil action.1(Doc. 1). On May 16, 2016, he filed a 

complaint against: Chase Bank; Wonderly Correia, a manager a Chase Bank; Bank of America;

and Wells Fargo Bank (“Defendants”). (Doc. 1, pg. 2-3). The facts of the complaint are 

unclear but seem to allege that the Defendants are taking money out of several of Plaintiff’s 

bank accounts without authorization or explanation. (Doc. 1, pgs. 4-6). The Court has 

reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint and it appears that this Court’s jurisdiction is not proper. 

Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Complaint with leave to file an amended complaint.

II. Analysis

As explained to Plaintiff in the Court’s prior order (Doc. 5), federal courts are courts of 

limited jurisdiction. Kokonnen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The 

court may raise the absence of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte, and must dismiss an 

action if it determines at any time that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(h)(3) (if a court determines at any time that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it must 

 

 

1

Plaintiff is not proceeding in forma pauperis as he paid the filing fee on May 23, 2016.

Case 1:16-cv-00693-DAD-EPG Document 7 Filed 06/21/16 Page 1 of 4
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

dismiss action); Steel v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 94-95 (1998) (court 

bound to ask and answer for itself, whether it has jurisdiction, even when not otherwise 

suggested); Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939, 954 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc)

(The Court is required to examine its own jurisdiction sua sponte and to dismiss the complaint 

if jurisdiction was lacking); Fiedler v. Clark, 714 F.2d 77, 78 (9th Cir. 1983) (federal court may 

dismiss sua sponte if jurisdiction is lacking).

Plaintiff contends that jurisdiction is based on a federal question. (Doc. 1, pg. 4). 

However, “a case ‘arises under’ federal law either where federal law creates the cause of action 

or ‘where the vindication of a right under state law necessarily turn[s] on some construction of 

federal law.’” Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 1088–89 (9th Cir. 2002) 

(quoting Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 8–9 (1983)). 

The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the “well-pleaded 

complaint rule.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Under the wellpleaded complaint rule, “federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on 

the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.” Id. 

Here, Plaintiff’s complaint merely alleges, “Chase Bank charged loan [sic] from 2004 to 

2007 and been taking money out of my account.” (Doc. 1, pg. 4). After listing the amounts in 

the accounts at held at Chase Bank, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo, Plaintiff states, “ I 

know that much is right but I don’t know how much more is missing because they stop [sic] 

sending my statements. Well[sic] Fargo are riding[sic] checks out of my account.” (Doc. 1, pg. 

5).

The complaint does not contain any additional facts and does not contain any allegation 

or citation to law arising under the Constitution, federal law, or treaties of the United States. 

Plaintiff is advised that to state a claim, a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement 

of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed 

factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of 

action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949-50 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 

555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, 

Case 1:16-cv-00693-DAD-EPG Document 7 Filed 06/21/16 Page 2 of 4
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

accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

663 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal 

conclusions are not. Id. at 678. In this case, Plaintiff has not given the Court enough facts or 

cited any legal authority to state a claim.

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, federal district courts also 

have original jurisdiction over civil actions in diversity cases “where the matter in controversy 

exceeds the sum or value of $75,000” and where the matter is between “citizens of different 

states.” 8 U.S.C. § 1332; Abrego Abrego et al. v. The Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676, 684 

(9th Cir. 2006). “Subject matter jurisdiction based upon diversity of citizenship requires that no

defendant have the same citizenship as any plaintiff.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a); Tosco Corp. v. 

Communities for a Better Env't, 236 F.3d 495, 499 (9th Cir.2001) (per curiam), abrogated on 

other grounds by Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 130 S.Ct. 1181 (2010). “A plaintiff suing 

in federal court must show in his pleading, affirmatively and distinctly, the existence of 

whatever is essential to federal jurisdiction, and, if he does not do so, the court ... on 

discovering the [defect], must dismiss the case, unless the defect be corrected by amendment.” 

Id. (quoting Smith v. McCullough, 270 U.S. 456 (1926)).

Here, Plaintiff is citizen of California and it appears that Defendant Correia, a teller at 

Chase Bank, is also a California citizen. Because both parties are citizens of California,

diversity jurisdiction cannot be established. Since Plaintiff has not established federal question 

or diversity jurisdiction, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint based on a lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction.

III. Leave to Amend

The Court is dismissing Plaintiff’s case without prejudice based on a lack of jurisdiction 

as outlined above. However, Plaintiff is given leave to amend his claims and file an amended 

complaint to cure the jurisdictional defect.

2

 If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, 

 

 

2 On May 18, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Add a New Party. (Doc. 4). As noted in this Court’s previous 

order issued on May 20, 2016 (Doc. 6), if Plaintiff wishes to add a party, he should do so in the amended 

complaint. If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, he should be mindful that the addition of another Defendant 

who is a citizen of California will further destroy diversity jurisdiction as outlined above.

Case 1:16-cv-00693-DAD-EPG Document 7 Filed 06/21/16 Page 3 of 4
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

he shall carefully consider the guidelines set forth in this order and only file an amended 

complaint if he believes he can allege cognizable federal claims or establish diversity 

jurisdiction. If Plaintiff files an amended complaint Plaintiff must clearly organize what claim 

is being brought against each defendant, the legal basis for each claim, and he must meet the 

plausibility standard outlined above. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, 

supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient 

factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 

at 1949-50. Any amended complaint shall bear the case number assigned to this action and 

be labeled “Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff is hereby notified that any amended complaint 

supersedes the original complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F 3d. 896, 907, n. 1 (9th Cir. 

2012) (en banc), and must be complete in itself without reference to the original complaint. See

Local Rule 220. 

 IV. Order

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Any amended complaint shall be filed no later 

than July 30, 2016, and be no more than twenty-five (25) pages. Failure to file an amended 

complaint by the date specified will result in dismissal of this action without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 20, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00693-DAD-EPG Document 7 Filed 06/21/16 Page 4 of 4