Brar
Brar v. Apple Inc.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 TANBEER SINGH BRAR, Case No. 1:25-cv-00503-JLT-CDB
Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO
DISMISS COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF
v. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
APPLE, INC., (Docs. 1, 5)
Defendant. ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
HEARING
16 (Docs. 4, 5) 17 14-DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiff Tanbeer Singh Brar initiated this action with the filing of a complaint against Defendant Apple, Inc., on April 30, 2025. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, did not pay the filing fee and instead filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 2). The Court has a duty to consider its own subject matter jurisdiction, regardless of whether the issue is raised by the parties and is required to dismiss an action over which it lacks jurisdiction. See Morongo Bank of Mission Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988); Fed. R. Civ. P.…