1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 KAMAL NARANG, Case No. 23-cv-00307-DMR

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:

9 v. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

10 AMARJIT NARANG, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 Pro se Plaintiff Kamal Narang filed a complaint and an application for leave to proceed in 13 forma pauperis (“IFP”) on January 20, 2023. [Docket Nos. 1, 2.]1 Having considered Plaintiff’s 14 papers, the court grants the IFP application. Because the court likely does not have subject matter 15 jurisdiction over this action, Plaintiff is ordered to file a document explaining why subject matter 16 jurisdiction exists. 17 Plaintiff brings claims against ten individuals: Amarjit Narang, John F. Stanley, Mary 18 Elizabeth Grant, Maize Kelsey, Swapna Anthoor, Maria Uhl, Sunaina Sabharwal, Dr. Bhupinder Bhandari, Dr. Pardeep Kumar, and Dr. Gautam Preek. Compl. at 2. As best as the court can tell, 19 Plaintiff alleges that a family court matter filed in the Superior Court of California, County of 20 Alameda has turned into fraud. Compl. at 4. Several handwritten notes on a civil case cover sheet 21 dated August 21, 2017 appear to call for the arrest of Judge Chatterjee for perjury and stabbing, 22 and to request Plaintiff’s money and property “50/50.” Compl. at 5. Plaintiff seems to assert that 23 she initially appeared in a marriage dissolution matter before Judge Garcia Lupe, during which 24 “all was good.” Compl. at 9. According to Plaintiff, respondent did not initially appear during the 25 proceedings, but later provided “fake, false Dr. notes from his friend Dr. Bhupinder Bhandari” and 26

27 1 The court received additional documents and letters filed by Plaintiff, as well as Plaintiff’s 1 never complied with court orders. Id. Plaintiff further states that she is on her death bed. Id. 2 Some additional filings by Plaintiff include civil court documents with handwritten notes 3 making statements related to fraud and perjury. [Docket No. 5, 6, 8.] In a cover page for these 4 documents, Plaintiff asserts that she has been sick since November 23, 2022 and reiterates 5 complaints against Judge Chatterjee. [Docket No. 5.] Other filings include court documents from 6 this district. [Docket No. 8.] Handwritten notes on these documents ask the Chief Judge of this district, the Honorable Richard Seeborg, to save Plaintiff, who is in critical treatment. Id. In 7 another submission styled as an addendum to the complaint, Plaintiff lists additional defendants, 8 including Judge Charlie Smiley, Judge Garcia Lupe, as well as other judges and staff working at 9 the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda. [Docket No. 9.] The addendum does not 10 state any allegations, but contains an array of different documents, including a proposed summons 11 and letters from doctors. Id. The most recent filings similarly contain letters from doctors, state 12 and district court documents, and handwritten notes. [Docket Nos. 12-14.] All appear related to 13 Plaintiff’s allegation that a family court case allegedly turned into fraud. 14 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and a “federal court is presumed to lack 15 jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” Stock W., Inc. v. 16 Confederated Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted). A federal court 17 may exercise either federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. Federal subject matter 18 jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 requires a civil action to arise under the constitution, laws, or 19 treaties of the United States. “[T]he presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is 20 governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only 21 when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” 22 Rivet v. Regions Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998) (quoting Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 23 U.S. 386, 392 (1987)). A district court has diversity jurisdiction where the parties are diverse and 24 “the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs.” 25 28 U.S.C. § 1332. “[T]he congressional grant of diversity jurisdiction is to be strictly 26 construed.” Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd., 704 F.2d 1088, 1092 (9th Cir. 1983). 27 Plaintiff avers that the court has federal jurisdiction over this case. See Compl. at 3. 1 However, as detailed above, Plaintiff appears only to assert that individuals connected to a family 2 court matter filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda engaged in fraud. Fraud 3 claims arise under state law, not federal law, and therefore do not provide a basis for federal 4 jurisdiction. See, e.g., Robinson Helicopter Co. v. Dana Corp., 34 Cal. 4th 979, 990 (2004) 5 (setting forth the elements of fraud claim under California law as “(1) a misrepresentation (false 6 representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (2) knowledge of falsity (or scienter); (3) intent to 7 defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (4) justifiable reliance; and (5) resulting damage”). Accordingly, 8 Plaintiff may only proceed in federal court if she establishes diversity jurisdiction. 9 As previously stated, a district court has diversity jurisdiction where the parties are diverse 10 and “the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interests and 11 costs.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332. In relevant part, 28 U.S.C. § 1332 provides that parties are diverse 12 when they are “citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). In order to be a citizen of a 13 State within the meaning of the diversity statute, a natural person must both be a citizen of the 14 United States and be domiciled within the State.” Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 15 U.S. 826, 828 (1989) (emphasis in original). “A person’s domicile is her permanent home, where 16 she resides with the intention to remain or to which she intends to return.” Kanter, 265 F.3d at 17 857. 18 Here, Plaintiff states only that she resides in Fremont, California and that Defendant 19 Amarjit Narang resides in Union City, California. Compl. at 1, 3. She does not provide any 20 information regarding any other Defendants’ location. Plaintiff also does not make any allegations 21 with regards to her or any Defendants’ citizenship or domicile. Assuming Plaintiff and Defendant 22 Amarjit Narang are citizens of California, “diversity jurisdiction requires complete 23 diversity between the parties—each defendant must be a citizen of a different state from each 24 plaintiff.” Diaz v. Davis (In re Digimarc Corp. Derivative Litig.), 549 F.3d 1223, 1234 (9th Cir. 25 2008). If Plaintiff and Defendant Amarjit Narang are both citizens of California, there is no 26 diversity jurisdiction. 27 Plaintiff appears to allege that the amount in controversy in this case is $71,000,000. 1 solely attributes different sums ranging from $3,000,000 to $15,000,000 to each Defendant 2 without further explanation. 3 As it is not clear that the court has jurisdiction over this action, by no later than April 20, 4 2023, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing why this matter should not be dismissed for lack of 5 subject matter jurisdiction. If Plaintiff does not file a timely response to this Order to Show 6 Cause, the court will recommend that the action be dismissed. 7 The court refers Plaintiff to the section “Representing Yourself” on the court’s website, 8 located at http://cand.uscourts.gov/pro-se-litigants, as well as the Court’s Legal Help Center for 9 unrepresented parties. The Legal Help Center may be reached by phone at (415) 782-8982. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: March 27, 2023 13 ______________________________________

DONNA M. RYU

14 Chief Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27