Ramsell v. Wells Fargo Bank NA ( 2022 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Craig Eugene Ramsell, et al., No. CV-22-08119-PCT-DWL 10 Petitioners, ORDER 11 v. 12 Wells Fargo Bank NA, et al., 13 Respondents. 14 15 On July 11, 2022, the Court ordered pro se Petitioners Craig Eugene Ramsell and 16 Monnie Ramsell (“the Ramsells”)1 to file, by August 11, 2022 an amended complaint 17 properly alleging subject-matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 6.) 18 On August 4, 2022, the Ramsells filed a motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 12.) The 19 Ramsells appear to assert that the Court may entertain an action in equity without subject- 20 matter jurisdiction, or perhaps that an action in equity necessarily bestows subject-matter 21 jurisdiction upon the Court. 22 Subject-matter jurisdiction and equitable jurisdiction are distinct concepts. 23 Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U.S. 738, 753-54 (1975) (“Our holding that the District 24 Court had subject-matter jurisdiction, assuming the requisite jurisdictional amount, does 25 not carry with it the further conclusion that the District Court properly could reach the 26 merits of Councilman’s claim or enjoin the petitioners from proceeding with the impending 27 court-martial. There remains the question of equitable jurisdiction, a question concerned, 28 1 The Ramsells assert they should be termed “Petitioners” rather than “Plaintiffs.” (Doc. 12 ¶ 6.) not with whether the claim falls within the limited jurisdiction conferred on the federal || courts, but with whether consistently with the principles governing equitable relief the 3 || court may exercise its remedial powers.”). In other words, “equitable jurisdiction . □ □ is nota form of federal subject matter jurisdiction.”? Guthrie v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co., 561 F. Supp. 3d 869, 873 (N.D. Cal. 2021). “The requirement that jurisdiction be 6 || established as a threshold matter ... is inflexible and without exception.” Steel Co. v. 7\| Citizens for a Better Env ’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94-95 (1998). See also LPP Mortg. Ltd. v. Vasicek, 8 || 227 F. Supp. 2d 1108, 1111 (D.N.D. 2002) (“Plaintiff finally argues that if this Court finds 9|| that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, it should assume ‘equitable jurisdiction.’ While || the principles of equity are applicable in some areas of the law, they are never applicable 11 || to subject matter jurisdiction. ... To seek ‘equitable jurisdiction’ is essentially a request || that subject matter jurisdiction be waived in this case. The Court can no more waive the 13} requirement of jurisdiction than it can waive provisions of the Constitution. The request || to assume ‘equitable jurisdiction’ is soundly denied.”) (citations omitted). 15 Accordingly, 16 IT IS ORDERED that the Ramsells’ motion for reconsideration (Doc. 12) is || denied. 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED sua sponte extending the deadline for the Ramsells to file an amended petition properly asserting grounds for subject matter jurisdiction to || August 18, 2022. The response deadline extends accordingly. 21 Dated this 8th day of August, 2022. 22 23 Lm ee” 24 f t _o——— Dominic W. Lanza 25 United States District Judge 26 27 28 _“[I]t has long been established that a federal court has the authority to decline to exercise its jurisdiction when it is asked to employ its historic powers as a court of equity. Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 717 (1996). _2-