Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05931/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05931-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ken Thompson
Defendant
Luz-Maria Urzua
Plaintiff
World Savings
Defendant

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUZ-MARIA URZUA and CESAR

ANCHANTE-MARTINETTI,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

WORLD SAVINGS BANK and KEN

THOMPSON,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 07-05931 JSW

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

This pro se action arises out of a lender-debtor dispute. However, Plaintiffs have cast

their pleading as an admiralty suit involving “U.S. Vessels.” What has been submitted as a

“Petition on for Libel of Review of an Administrative Judgment” in this matter makes little to

no sense at all. 

Plaintiffs fail to allege any claim under state or federal law. In contravention of Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), Plaintiff failed to file a pleading setting forth the grounds upon

which this Court has jurisdiction, “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief, . . . and a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.” 

Rather, Plaintiff’s complaint is disjointed to the point of being incoherent and unintelligible. It

is thus unclear to the Court the legal theories on which Plaintiffs seek relief, what relief they

are, in fact, seeking, or the underlying factual basis for the suit. 

Case 3:07-cv-05931-JSW Document 34 Filed 04/14/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Furthermore, federal courts are under a duty to raise and decide issues of subject matter

jurisdiction sua sponte at any time it appears subject matter jurisdiction may be lacking. Fed.

R. 

Civ. P. 12; Augustine v. United States, 704 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1983). If the Court

determines that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, the Court must dismiss the case. Id.; Fed.

R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). California superior courts are courts of general, unlimited jurisdiction and

can render enforceable judgments in practically any type of case. However, federal courts have

limited jurisdiction. Federal courts can only adjudicate cases which the Constitution or

Congress authorize them to adjudicate: those cases involving diversity of citizenship (where

the parties are from diverse states), or a federal question, or those cases to which the United

States 

is a party. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375

(1994). Federal courts are presumptively without jurisdiction over civil cases and the burden of

establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction. Id. at 377. Plaintiffs fail to

allege sufficient facts to demonstrate there is any basis for federal jurisdiction. 

This action has the hallmarks of a debt-elimination Internet scam. As a federallyregulated bank, World Savings Bank has the duty to report misconduct to the proper federal

regulatory authorities. 

Because the complaint is incomprehensible and this Court is presumptively without

jurisdiction, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is HEREBY GRANTED. The case is dismissed

with prejudice. This order does not address the validity of the loan between Plaintiffs and

World Savings Bank. The Court counsels Plaintiffs against filing any more such frivolous

admiralty actions. The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 14, 2008 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-05931-JSW Document 34 Filed 04/14/08 Page 2 of 2