United States District Court, D. Nevada
JUAN X. HIGH, Plaintiff,
MICHAEL MANDA, et al., Defendants.
Ferenbach, United States Magistrate Judge.
matter involves pro se Plaintiff Juan X. High's
civil action against Defendants Michael Manda, Ramiro
Renteria, Tamas Lendvai, Jim O'Donnell, Juan Carlos
Espinoza, Tricia Griffith, and Michael Sieger. Before the
Court are High's Application to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis (ECF No. 6) and Amended Complaint (ECF No. 5).
For the reasons stated below, High's Amended Complaint is
dismissed without prejudice.
Juan X. High's filings present one question for the
Court: whether his complaint states a plausible claim for
relief. The Court concludes that it does not.
High's Complaint Fails to State a Plausible
complaint is filed IFP, it must be dismissed prior to service
of process if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a
claim, or seeks monetary damages from defendants who are
immune from suit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2);
see also Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1226-27
(9th Cir. 1984). Generally, the Court liberally construes pro
se pleadings and gives pro se plaintiffs the benefit of any
doubt during initial review. See Resnick v. Hayes,
213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). Additionally, if amending
the Complaint would remedy the deficiencies, plaintiffs
should be notified and provided an opportunity to amend.
See Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 758 (9th Cir.
2003). In determining whether a complaint is frivolous,
however, a court is not bound, as it usually is when making a
determination based solely on the pleadings, “to accept
without question the truth of the plaintiff's
allegations.” See Denton v. Hernandez, 504
U.S. 25, 32 (1992) (emphasis in original). The Court may find
a complaint factually frivolous “when the facts alleged
rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible,
whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts
available to contradict them.” See id.;
see also O'Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 617
(9th Cir.1990) (holding a complaint submitted in forma
pauperis “is frivolous if it has no arguable basis
in fact or law”).
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction” and possess
only the power to adjudicate cases that the Constitution and
federal statutes permit. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life
Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); see also
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S.
546, 552 (2005). “A federal court is presumed to lack
jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary
affirmatively appears.” See Stock West, Inc. v.
Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, 873
F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing California ex
rel. Younger v. Andrus, 608 F.2d 1247, 1249 (9th Cir.
1979)). A court's jurisdiction to resolve a case on its
merits requires a showing that the plaintiff has both subject
matter and personal jurisdiction. See Ruhrgas AG v.
Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 577 (1999).
matter jurisdiction gives a court jurisdiction over the type
of case that a plaintiff brings. Federal district courts have
original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising
under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United
States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. When a
plaintiff states an actionable claim under federal law,
district courts have supplemental jurisdiction over all
claims in the case that are so related to claims providing
original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or
controversy. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
case, High's Complaint asserts four causes of action, all
related to a vehicle accident allegedly caused by a faulty
anti-braking system and driver's stability control module
in a 2003 BMW 745Li vehicle purchased and driven by High. One
of these causes of action arises under federal law, and the
remainder arise under various state laws, for which High
claims that this Court has supplemental jurisdiction. The
Court will address the federal cause of action to determine
whether it states a valid claim upon which relief may be
federal cause of action is brought under the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act (“MMWA”). Thus, the MMWA's
jurisdictional prerequisites will be examined and tested
against High's allegations. The remaining claims arise
under Nevada state law. After reviewing High's Complaint
and applicable law, the Court finds that the allegations in
High's Complaint fail to state an actionable federal
claim under the MMWA.
The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
Complaint alleges that the Defendants' breach of express
and implied warranties constitutes a violation of the MMWA.
The MMWA provides that “a consumer who is damaged by
the failure of a supplier, warrantor, or service contractor
to comply with any obligation under [the MMWA], or under a
written warranty, implied warranty, or service contract, may
bring suit for damages and other legal and equitable relief
….” See 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(1).
Federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over
MMWA actions (see id. at §§ 2310(d)(1)(A)
& (B)), but no claim is cognizable by a federal court:
(A) if the amount in controversy of any individual claim is
less than the sum or value of $25;
(B) if the amount in controversy is less than the sum or
value of $50, 000 (exclusive of interests and costs) computed
on the basis of all ...