1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 RAMON RODRIGUEZ FUENTES, et al., Case No. 22-cv-07051-EJD

9 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS

10 v.

11 REDWOOD HOLDINGS LLC, et al., Re: ECF Nos. 5, 23 Defendants. 12

13 14 I. INTRODUCTION 15 In March 2007, pro se Plaintiffs Ramon Rodriguez Fuentes and Letisia Macias Fuentes 16 (together, “Plaintiffs”) purchased residential property in Watsonville, California, with a loan from 17 IndyMac Federal Bank, F.S.B. See ECF No. 1-3 (“Compl. Ex. A”) at 27–54. The property was 18 eventually subject to a foreclosure sale in August 2022, and sold to Defendant Redwood Holdings, 19 LLC (“Redwood”). See ECF No. 1-7 (“Compl. Ex. 4”) at 2, 6. The Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale 20 was recorded with the County of Santa Cruz in October 2022. Id. at 2. 21 On November 10, 2022, Plaintiffs initiated the present action in this court as a challenge to 22 the foreclosure. ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”). Presently before the court is Defendants Redwood 23 Holdings, LLC, Gregory Geiser, and Wedgewood, LLC’s (together, “Defendants”) motion to 24 dismiss the Complaint. ECF No. 5 (“Motion” or “Mot.”). Plaintiffs have filed a written 25 opposition to the motion. ECF No. 11 (“Opp.”). Having carefully reviewed the relevant 26 documents, the Court finds this matter suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to 27 Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). For the reasons stated below, the Court finds this case must be dismissed 1 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Motion will be granted. 2 II. DISCUSSION 3 Defendants argue that the Complaint fails because, among other reasons, Plaintiffs have 4 not established a basis for federal jurisdiction. Mot. at 5–6. Whether subject matter jurisdiction 5 exists is a threshold question that must be addressed before reaching the merits of an action. See 6 Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 94–95 (1998). Because the Court finds that it 7 lacks jurisdiction over this action, it will not reach Defendants’ other arguments. 8 A. Legal Standard 9 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co of 10 America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Federal jurisdiction can generally arise in two ways: (1) from 11 the presence of a federal question, or (2) from diversity of the parties. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 12 (federal question), 1332 (diversity). For jurisdiction based on a federal question, the court looks to 13 the face of a “well-pleaded complaint” to determine whether a cause of action is created by federal 14 law or whether the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on the resolution of a substantial 15 question of federal law. Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 808 (1988) 16 (citing Franchise Tax Bd. of California v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27–28, 17 (1983)). For diversity jurisdiction, federal courts have original jurisdiction where (1) opposing 18 parties are citizens of different states and (2) the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 19 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The rule requires complete diversity, i.e., every plaintiff must be diverse from 20 every defendant. See Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1043 (9th Cir. 2009). “[A] 21 party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction should be able to allege affirmatively the actual 22 citizenship of the relevant parties” to confirm that all parties are diverse. Kanter v. Warner- 23 Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). 24 “A party invoking the federal court's jurisdiction has the burden of proving the actual 25 existence of subject matter jurisdiction.” Thompson v. McCombe, 99 F.3d 352, 353 (9th Cir. 26 1996). In determining subject matter jurisdiction, “the district court is not confined by the facts 27 contained in the four corners of the complaint—it may consider facts and need not assume the 1 truthfulness of the complaint.” Americopters, LLC v. F.A.A., 441 F.3d 726, 732 n.4 (9th Cir. 2 2006) (emphasis in original). When a defendant challenges the plaintiff's factual allegations with 3 proof outside the pleadings, “the plaintiff must support her jurisdictional allegations with 4 ‘competent proof’ under the same evidentiary standard that governs in the summary judgment 5 context.” Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted) 6 (quoting Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 96–97 (2010)). 7 B. Federal Question Jurisdiction 8 There appear to be two causes of action in the Complaint, one for wrongful foreclosure and 9 one for quiet title,1 both of which are based in state law. See Compl. at 1 (alleging “wrongful 10 foreclosure and/or Deed of Trust Sale process”), 5 (“[Defendants] claim they have duly perfected 11 title. Such is a false claim.”), 12 (“Duly perfected title was never acquired with clean hands, good 12 faith, duty of care, and/or full disclosure.”). To the extent Plaintiffs intended to assert federal 13 question jurisdiction by titling the Complaint a “Complaint for Temporary Injunction in the Form 14 of a Petition for Order to Show Cause” and alleging that they “file[d] this Complaint for 15 Injunction via Federal Rule [of Civil Procedure] 65,” Compl. at 1, such an argument is unavailing. 16 Rule 65 “sets forth the procedural terms for the issuance of injunctions,” but “does not itself 17 authorize injunctive relief.” Sims Snowboards, Inc. v. Kelly, 863 F.2d 643, 646 (9th Cir. 1988). 18 The other federal statutes and regulations mentioned in the Complaint—e.g., 11 U.S.C. § 19 502(b)(1), 12 C.F.R. 223.14, and [12] U.S.C. § 1813—do not allow for the claims or relief sought 20 here. Nor do the general references to “constitutional violations” or civil rights issues. See 21 Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513 n. 10 (2006) (“A claim invoking federal-question 22 jurisdiction ... may be dismissed for want of subject-matter jurisdiction if it is not colorable, i.e., if 23 it is ‘immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction’ or is ‘wholly 24 insubstantial and frivolous.’” (citation omitted)).2 The Complaint, therefore, does not support 25

26 1 The Court has liberally construed Plaintiffs’ pleadings because they are proceeding pro se. See Abassi v. I.N.S., 305 F.3d 1028, 1032 (9th Cir. 2002). 27 2 Plaintiffs appear to argue in their opposition that this Court has jurisdiction based on an adverse ruling in a related action filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of 1 federal question jurisdiction under § 1331. 2 C. Diversity Jurisdiction 3 Plaintiffs assert this Court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Compl. at 1. 4 Plaintiffs do not allege the citizenship of any party, but allege that they are co-owners, co-title 5 holders, and co-occupants—presumably of the property in Watsonville, California. Plaintiffs are 6 therefore domiciled in and citizens of California. Likewise, Defendant Gregory Geiser is a 7 resident of California, and therefore also a citizen. ECF No. 5-1 (Declaration of Gregory Geiser) 8 ¶¶ 2. Defendants Wedgewood, LLC and Redwood Holdings, LLC are Delaware limited liability 9 companies, and Defendant Geiser is the founder, president, and chief executive officer of 10 Wedgewood, LLC, but Defendants have not affirmatively indicated whether the LLC defendants 11 have any members who are membership of the LLC defendants. Id. ¶ 3. However, because 12 Plaintiffs and Defendant Geiser are all residents of California, complete diversity does not exist. 13 Accordingly, jurisdiction does not arise under § 1332. 14 Since the Complaint does not demonstrate the existence of either federal question or 15 diversity jurisdiction, the court must dismiss this case. See Ex Parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 506, 514 16 (1868) (“Without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause. Jurisdiction is power to 17 declare the law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is that of 18 announcing the fact and dismissing the cause.”). The dismissal will be without prejudice. 19 Freeman v. Oakland Unified Sch. Dist., 179 F.3d 846, 847 (9th Cir.1999) (“Dismissals for lack of 20 jurisdiction should be ... without prejudice so that a plaintiff may reassert his claims in a 21 competent court.” (internal quotations omitted)). 22 III. CONCLUSION 23 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Complaint 24 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The dismissal is WITHOUT PREJUDICE and WITH 25 LEAVE TO AMEND. 26

27 California that allegedly implicated Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment rights. Opp. at 2–4. Plaintiffs did not include such allegations in their Complaint, but the same reasoning would apply. 1 Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint addressing the jurisdictional deficiencies 2 || identified in this Order by May 15, 2023. 3 The case management conference scheduled for May 11, 2023 is VACATED. Defendants’ 4 || motion to appear by telephone at the May 11 conference, ECF No. 23, is DENIED AS MOOT. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: May 1, 2023 8 9

EDWARD J. DAVILA

10 United States District Judge 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No.: 22-cv-07051-EJD

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS