United States District Court, D. Nevada
J. KOPPE United States Magistrate Judge
is proceeding in this action pro se and requested
authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in
forma pauperis. Docket No. 1. On January 9, 2017, the
Court denied Plaintiff's application without prejudice.
Docket No. 3. On January 11, 2017, Plaintiff submitted a
renewed application, which the Court granted on January 17,
2017. Docket Nos. 4, 5. Also on January 17, 2017, the Court
screened Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915, and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend.
Docket No. 5. The Court found that the complaint attempted to
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but failed to
allege that Defendants were state actors or acted under color
of law. Id. at 3. The Court provided Plaintiff an
opportunity to cure that defect. Id. at 3-4.
has now filed an amended complaint. Docket No. 7. Plaintiff
appears to allege claims for breach of contract, breach of
the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
negligence, and violations of Nevada Revised Statute
(“NRS”) 686A.310. See Id. at 3-8. For
the purposes of the discussion below, the Court finds that
Nevada law likely applies to these state law claims. See,
e.g., Contreras v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co.,
135 F.Supp.3d 1208, 1218-19 (D. Nev. 2015).
Court has a duty to ensure that it has subject matter
jurisdiction over the dispute before it. See, e.g.,
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3). Federal courts are courts of limited
jurisdiction and possess only that power authorized by the
Constitution and statute. See Rasul v. Bush, 542
U.S. 466, 489 (2004). “A federal court is presumed to
lack jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary
affirmatively appears.” Stock W., Inc. v.
Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, 873
F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989). “The party asserting
federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving that the
case is properly in federal court.” McCauley v.
Ford Motor Co., 264 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001)
(citing McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298
U.S. 178, 189 (1936)).
to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal courts have original
jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”
Cases “arise under” federal law either when
federal law creates the cause of action or where the
vindication of a right under state law necessarily turns on
the construction of federal law. Republican Party of Guam
v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 1088-89 (9th Cir. 2002).
Whether federal question jurisdiction exists is based on the
“well-pleaded complaint rule, ” which provides
that “federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal
question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's
properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, Inc. v.
Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987).
Court also has jurisdiction over civil cases in which there
is diversity among the parties. “Jurisdiction founded
on 28 U.S.C. § 1332 requires that the parties be in
complete diversity and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,
000.” Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins.
Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003). To establish
diversity, the plaintiff must be a citizen of a different
state than each defendant. See Allstate Ins. Co. v.
Hughes, 358 F.3d 1089, 1095 (9th Cir. 2004).
case, Plaintiff alleges that the Court has federal question
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Docket No. 7 at 3.
Plaintiff is incorrect, however, as she asserts only state
law claims. The Court does not have federal question
jurisdiction over the instant case.
fails to demonstrate that the Court has diversity
jurisdiction. Plaintiff alleges that she resides in Clark
County, Nevada, where she has obtained multiple Allstate
policies. Id. at 2. Plaintiff further alleges that
Defendant Baumann lives and works in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Id. Plaintiff and Defendant Baumann are therefore
both citizens of Nevada for diversity jurisdiction purposes.
See, e.g., Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co.,
265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (citizenship is determined
by domicile, which is “[a] person's . . . permanent
home, where she resides with the intention to remain or to
which she intends to return”). As a result, the Court
finds that diversity of citizenship is not
also fails to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement.
In her prayer for relief, Plaintiff submits that she has
sustained only approximately $20, 000 in damages, an amount
well below the statutory minimum, and for other damages
“in a sum in excess of $10, 000.” Docket No. 7 at
5, 8. Plaintiff never alleges that she has sustained anywhere
near $75, 000 in damages. Therefore Plaintiff has also failed
to meet the amount in controversy requirement for diversity
Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that this Court has
subject matter jurisdiction, this Court need not screen her