Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00832/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00832-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Louie A. Estrada
Defendant
SC Fuel Cardlock System, Inc.
Defendant
Frank Silva
Plaintiff
Michael S. Warda
Defendant
Joelle J. Wendeln
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,

 v.

MICHAEL S. WARDA, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:16-cv-00832-LJO-BAM 

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Frank Silva (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, initiated this action on June 15, 

2016. Plaintiff’s suit appears related to real property located in Turlock, California. (Doc. 1). 

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff alleges: “The House was for sale for a year. Wanted me to sign paper with out a 

loan number Michael Warda would not give a loan number so I wouldnt sign & all Then they 

sold house with out my signing.” Doc. 1 at 3 (unedited text). As requested relief, Plaintiff 

states, “I didnt get rent for one year & wanted me to sign papers with out a loan & then came up 

with all these fees & I tried to go to a lawyer but would make appointed or call back with 

appointed.” Doc. 1 at 6 (unedited text). 

Plaintiff names Michael S. Warda, Joelle J. Wendeln (Escrow Officer), SC Fuel Cardlock 

System, Inc., and Louie A. Estrada as defendants. 

Case 1:16-cv-00832-LJO-BAM Document 2 Filed 06/23/16 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

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

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

matter jurisdiction. Federal courts can adjudicate only those cases in which the United States 

Constitution and Congress authorize them to adjudicate. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 

U.S. 375, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 1677 (1994). To proceed in federal court, Plaintiff’s complaint must 

establish the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. Federal courts are presumptively without 

jurisdiction over civil actions, and the burden to establish the contrary rests upon the party 

asserting jurisdiction. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377, 114 S.Ct. at 1677. Lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction is never waived and may be raised by the court sua sponte. Attorneys Trust v. 

Videotape Computer Products, Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594 595 (9th Cir. 1996); Demery v. 

Kupperman, 7356 F.2d 1139, 1149 n. 8 (9th Cir. 1984). “If the court determines at any time that 

it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) 

(emphasis added).

1. Diversity Jurisdiction

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, federal district courts have diversity jurisdiction over civil 

actions “where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000,” and where the 

matter is between “citizens of different states.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). 

Here, Plaintiff has not shown that the parties are completely diverse. The complaint 

indicates that Plaintiff and Defendants Warda, Wendeln, and Estrad Michael Kirby are citizens 

of California. Doc. 1 at 2-3. If the parties are California citizens, this destroys the requisite 

“complete diversity.” See Cook v. AVI Casino Enterprises, Inc., 548 F.3d 718, 722 (9th Cir. 

2008). Thus, Plaintiff has failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity. 

2. Federal Question Jurisdiction

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal district courts have jurisdiction over “all civil 

actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” “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. 

Case 1:16-cv-00832-LJO-BAM Document 2 Filed 06/23/16 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

v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 8–9, 103 S.Ct. 2841, 77 L.Ed.2d 420 

(1983)). The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the “wellpleaded complaint rule.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 963 

L.Ed.2d 318 (1987). Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, “federal jurisdiction exists only 

when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” 

Id.

Plaintiff’s complaint appears to concern the propriety of the sale of real property. Real 

property law is “traditionally the domain of state law.” Fid. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. de la 

Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141, 174 (1982); Oregon ex rel. State Land Board v. Corvallis Sand & Gravel 

Co., 429 U.S. 363, 378 (1977) (“Property ownership is not governed by a general federal law, 

but rather by the laws of the several States.”); cf. Bock v. Smith, No. CIV. S-11-2903 LKK/EFB, 

2012 WL 174968, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2012) (“the heart of the civil dispute is based on the 

rightful possession and control of real property and its effects; resolution of the property dispute 

falls firmly within the purview of state law”). Plaintiff’s claims concerning the sale of real 

property are therefore governed by state law and do not arise under the Constitution, laws, or 

treaties of the United States. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction 

based on the presence of a federal question. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to allege subject matter jurisdiction. However, as Plaintiff is 

proceeding pro se, the Court will provide him with the opportunity to file a first amended 

complaint in the event he can allege facts or claims establishing this Court’s jurisdiction. Lopez 

v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by 

adding new, unrelated claims in his amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th 

Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” complaints).

Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. Lacey 

v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). Therefore, Plaintiff’s first 

amended complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded 

pleading.” Local Rule 220. 

Case 1:16-cv-00832-LJO-BAM Document 2 Filed 06/23/16 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

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; 

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a 

first amended complaint; and

3. If Plaintiff fails to file a first amended complaint in compliance with this order, 

the Court will recommend that this action be dismissed with prejudice, for failure to state a claim 

and failure to obey a court order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 23, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00832-LJO-BAM Document 2 Filed 06/23/16 Page 4 of 4