United States District Court, D. Nevada
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
J. KOPPE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
case involves Plaintiff's claim to quiet title of a
property in California. The Court has a duty to ensure that
it has subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute before
it, which is an issue it can raise at any time. See,
e.g., Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3). On January 31, 2018, the
Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the case should not
be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Docket
No. 3.Plaintiff has now filed a response, and a
motion to transfer. Docket Nos. 4-5.
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 West, 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.
General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189
has failed to meet his burden of showing subject matter
jurisdiction. First, Plaintiff has not shown that diversity
jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. In
particular, diversity jurisdiction exists only if, inter
alia, a plaintiff does not share the same state
citizenship with any defendant (i.e.,
“complete diversity”). E.g.,
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hughes, 358 F.3d 1089, 1095
(9th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff has not established that complete
diversity exists here and, to the contrary, indicates that he
and at least one of the defendants are Nevadans. Docket No. 5
at 2 (“Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of
Nevada”); Docket No. 1 at 2, 11, and Docket No. 5 at 2
(identifying Defendant Amarylsis Development as a Nevada
Plaintiff has not shown that federal question jurisdiction
exists. Federal courts have original jurisdiction over
“all civil actions arising under the Constitution,
laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331. 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). Plaintiff here brings a single claim to quiet title,
Docket No. 1 at 14, premised on regulations established under
California law, see, e.g., id. at 4
(alleging that homeowners association “did not follow
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1367.1”). No
showing has been made that such claim turns in any way on
short, Plaintiff has failed to establish federal subject
matter jurisdiction in this case. The undersigned therefore
RECOMMENDS that this case be
DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. As a
corollary, the undersigned further
RECOMMENDS that Plaintiffs motion to
transfer to federal court in California (Docket No. 5) be
DENIED, as that court also lacks subject
matter jurisdiction for the reasons identified above.
to Local Rule IB 3-2 any objection to this Report
and Recommendation must be in writing and filed with the
Clerk of the Court within 14 days of service of this
document. The Supreme Court has held that the
courts of appeal may determine that an appeal has been waived
due to the failure to file objections within the specified
time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This
Circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections
within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address
and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal
the District Court's order and/or appeal factual issues
from the order of the District Court. Martinez v.
Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v.
Simi Valley United Sch. Dist, 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th
 The Court also ordered Plaintiff to
show cause why the case should not be dismissed for improper
venue. Docket No. 3. In light of the findings herein, the
Court need not address venue.
 The complaint is convoluted, and fails
to clearly show the state citizenship of each defendant,
including Plaintiff's ex-wife, Chetna Pathak.
 Plaintiff at times references a
bankruptcy proceeding. See, e.g., Docket No. 5 at 1.
The Court does not opine herein whether Plaintiff is able to
take some action in those bankruptcy proceedings, but rather
finds only that he is not permitted ...