1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ANTHONIA OR H WASHINGTON, Case No. 25-cv-01684-AMO

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

v. 9 Re: Dkt. No. 10 10 BANK OF AMERICA, Defendant. 11

12

13 14 Plaintiff Antonia Or H Washington, proceeding without the assistance of counsel, filed this 15 action against Bank of America for failing to service her account, which prevented her from 16 accessing funds, which, in turn, led to her defaulting on an agreement to purchase farmland in 17 Clearlake, California and kept her from paying bail for her boyfriend with a check she received 18 from an attorney. Complaint (“Compl.”) (Dkt. No. 10) at 43-50. 19 Because Washington has been allowed to proceed without prepayment of fees, the court 20 must dismiss her complaint before service of process if it “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to 21 state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who 22 is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(i)-(iii). “The standard for determining 23 whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under 24 § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure 25 to state a claim.” Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). As 26 such, the complaint must allege facts that plausibly establish each defendant’s liability. See Bell 27 Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the 1 plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the 2 defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 3 In making this determination, the Court must “take as true all allegations of material fact 4 stated in the complaint and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Watison, 5 668 F.3d at 1112 (citation omitted). The Court must also “construe a pro se plaintiff’s pleadings 6 liberally and afford the p[laintiff] the benefit of any doubt.” Id. (internal quotations and citations 7 omitted). 8 Moreover, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. 9 Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). There are two bases for subject matter 10 jurisdiction in federal court: federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. Federal 11 question jurisdiction requires that the claims asserted in a complaint arise under federal law. 28 12 U.S.C. § 1331. Diversity jurisdiction requires that (1) the amount in controversy exceed $75,000 13 and (2) the parties be citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Courts have “an 14 independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence 15 of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). If a federal 16 court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it must dismiss the entire complaint. Id. 17 Washington asserts that federal question jurisdiction exists over this action because under 18 the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (“FDIA”), 12 U.S.C. § 1811, Bank of America is insured by the 19 United States. Compl. at 46. She also asserts that diversity jurisdiction exists because she is 20 “requesting” $75,000. Id. at 47. 21 Despite these assertions, Washington fails to establish subject matter jurisdiction under 22 either theory. “[T]he FDIA does not provide a private right of action for individuals who are 23 allegedly harmed by an institution’s non-compliance with that Act.” Tidwell v. JPMorgan Chase 24 Bank, N.A., No. C-13-2621 EMC, 2013 WL 5539414, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2013); see also 25 Mehmood v. Citibank, N.A., No. 2:17-CV-02689-MCE-AC PS, 2018 WL 1744593, at *2 (E.D. 26 Cal. Apr. 11, 2018) (finding allegations suggesting that Citibank stole plaintiff’s money 27 insufficient to state a cognizable claim and noting that “the fact that a financial institution is 1 federally insured does not necessarily mean that any bad act it commits will support a federal 2 || lawsuit”). Thus, the FDIA does not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction. 3 Washington also fails to establish that diversity jurisdiction exists in this case. Assuming, 4 || without deciding, that Washington and Bank of America are diverse parties, Washington has not 5 alleged facts establishing that the amount in controversy requirement is met. She asserts that she 6 || is “requesting” $75,000. Compl. at 47. This assertion is insufficient to satisfy the amount in 7 controversy needed to support diversity jurisdiction for two reasons. First, the damages claimed 8 must exceed $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Second, “[w]here [a] plaintiff sues to enforce or 9 || protect an interest in property, the present value of that interest must exceed $75,000.” Rutter 10 Group Prac. Guide Fed. Civ. Pro. Before Trial, Ch. 2C-8 ¥ 2:1836 (Calif. and 9th Cir. Ed. 2025). 11 In this case, Washington puts the value of the land at issue at “9-10,000 dollars.” Jd. at 48. 12 || Accordingly, she cannot satisfy the amount in controversy requirement needed for diversity 5 13 || jurisdiction to exist. 14 Having found no basis for federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction, the Court 3 15 || DISMISSES this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 16 || Because Washington has already been given an opportunity to amend her complaint and failed to 3 17 cure the deficiencies previously outlined by Magistrate Judge Kim in the screening order issued 18 February 21, 2025, Dkt. No. 4, the Court finds that any additional amendment would be futile and 19 thus DENIES further leave to amend. The Clerk is therefore instructed to close the file in this 20 || matter. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: October 29, 2025 23 Mod □□□ 24 oh

ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN

United States District Judge 26 27 28