Sherwyn v. Clarus HQ ( 2021 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 Malinda Sherwyn, No. CV-21-00249-TUC-JR 9 Plaintiff, 10 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. 11 Clarus HQ, et al. 12 Defendants. 13 14 On June 21, 2021, Plaintiff Malinda Sherwyn filed her pro se Complaint (Doc. 1) 15 16 and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2). In the Complaint, Plaintiff describes 17 a tripping incident allegedly involving Defendants’ Mobile Board that resulted in injuries. 18 She specifically alleges that “[t]he Mobile Board created by Claris HQ is a poorly designed 19 tripping hazard and caused an injury that laid me up over the entire summer of 2020.” 20 21 Complaint, ¶ 7. Plaintiff “seeks compensatory damages in the amount of $30,000.00 plus 22 if I hire one, all attorney[‘]s fees and costs if incurred in connection with this action.” 23 Complaint, ¶ 8. 24 25 A federal court has an independent duty to assess whether federal subject matter 26 jurisdiction exists, even where the parties do not raise the issue. See United Investors Life 27 Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that “the district 28 1 court had a duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the removed action sua sponte, 2 whether the parties raised the issue or not”); Rains v. Criterion Sys., Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 342 3 (9th Cir. 1996). The court must sua sponte dismiss the case if, at any time, it determines 4 5 that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). A federal district court 6 generally has original jurisdiction over a civil action when: (1) a federal question is 7 presented in an action “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States” 8 9 or (2) there is complete diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds 10 $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a). 11 In her complaint, Plaintiff failed to allege any basis for federal question jurisdiction 12 13 under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Additionally, the facts she has alleged also do not support a 14 plausible federal claim against the Defendants. Rather, the allegations in the complaint 15 support a claim for negligence or products liability that ordinarily would be governed by 16 state law. 17 18 She also has failed to establish diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) 19 (establishing that the federal court’s diversity jurisdiction extends to “all civil actions 20 where the matter in controversy exceeds . . . $75,000 . . . and is between . . . citizens of 21 22 different States.”). She alleges damages in the amount of $30,000.00. However, 23 “jurisdiction founded on [diversity grounds] requires that the parties be in complete 24 diversity and the amount in controversy exceed $75,000.” Matheson v. Progressive 25 26 Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003). 27 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden of establishing the 28 basis of the Court’s jurisdiction. See Indus. Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, || 1092 (9th Cir. 1990) (“The party asserting jurisdiction has the burden of proving all 2 jurisdictional facts”). Without a basis for jurisdiction, the Court is required to dismiss the 3 4|| case. Fed R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the Court determines at any time that it lacks subject- 5 || matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action’). 6 : Accordingly, 7 g IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff SHOW CAUSE why the Court should not dismiss g|| this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) by August 10 13, 2021. Failure to respond by August 13, 2021, will result in the immediate dismissal of 11 the action. 12 13 Dated this 13th day of July, 2021. 14 15 16 elven. be 17 Hoflorable Jacqueline M. Rateau 18 United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-