United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ALLAL K. AMRANI, et al., Plaintiffs,
U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST, et al., Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court sua sponte following the
Court's Order to Show Cause. Dkt. #47. At various times,
the Court has expressed concerns over whether it could
exercise subject matter jurisdiction over the
Plaintiff's, Mr. Allal K. Amrani's (“Mr.
Amrani”), claims.Dkts. #14 and #38. The Court therefore
ordered all parties to address whether Mr. Amrani (1) could
establish federal question jurisdiction, (2) had standing to
assert claims invoking federal question jurisdiction, (3)
could properly state a claim invoking federal question
jurisdiction, and (4) could otherwise avoid the application
of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to bar his
claims.Dkt. #47 at 3. Mr. Amrani and various
defendants have responded. Dkt. #49 (Defendant Channa
Copeland as Governor of Northstar Case Management LLC); Dkts.
#50 and #51 (Mr. Amrani); Dkt. #54 (Defendant MTC Financial
Inc. d/b/a Trustee Corps); Dkt. #55 (Defendants Caliber Home
Loans, Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.,
and U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. as Trustee for LSF9 Master
Participation Trust); Dkts. #56 and #57 (Defendants Fidelity
National Law Group and Daniel A. Womac). Upon review, the
Court finds no basis for subject matter jurisdiction and
accordingly dismisses this action without prejudice.
Court has previously recounted the background to this action
and sets it forth here:
[Mr. Amrani] alleges that he owns a piece of property in
SeaTac, Washington (the “Property”). Dkt. #7 at
¶ 1. The Property was acquired, in 2006, by one of the
defendants in pursuit of a joint business venture with [Mr.
Amrani]. Id. at ¶ 8-12. The Property was later
transferred to the business venture, but payments were
missed, and the mortgage went into default in 2011.
Id. at ¶ 19.
Over the years, [Mr. Amrani] has recorded several quit claim
deeds related to the Property and has recorded a “UCC
Development Real Estate Services Mechanic's Lien”
against the Property. Id. at ¶ 26; Dkt. #7-4.
Concurrently, several of the defendants have continued to
seek foreclosure of the Property and have continued to send
[Mr. Amrani] and his former partner notices at the Property.
On December 16, 2016, unspecified defendants filed a
complaint in King County Superior Court seeking to foreclose
on the Property [or establish the status of certain liens on
the Property]. Dkt. #7 at ¶ 28. A guardian ad
litem (“GAL”) was appointed for [Mr. Amrani]
due to significant health issues that were caused, at least
in part, by the mortgage default. Id. at
¶¶ 39-40. Ultimately, the GAL took actions that
[Mr. Amrani] maintains were not in his best interest,
including placing [Mr. Amrani]'s interest in the Property
into a special needs trust-for which the GAL was the trustee.
Id.; Dkt. #7-5. [Mr. Amrani] believes that the GAL,
a defendant, has acted to the benefit of several of the other
defendants in this action. Dkt. #7 at ¶ 34.
#14 at 2-3.
plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, as Mr. Amrani
does here, the court is to dismiss the action, at any time,
if it fails to state a claim, raises frivolous or malicious
claims, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B). Establishing subject matter jurisdiction in
federal courts is paramount. Valdez v. Allstate Ins.
Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004). “When a
requirement goes to subject-matter jurisdiction, courts are
obligated to consider sua sponte issues that the
parties have disclaimed or have not presented [as] . . .
[s]ubject-matter jurisdiction can never be waived or
forfeited.” Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134,
141 (2012). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 likewise
requires that “[i]f the court determines at any time
that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must
dismiss the action.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3).
federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, the
plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that a case is
properly filed in federal court. Kokkonen v. Guardian
Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); In re Ford
Motor Co./Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., 264 F.3d 952,
957 (9th Cir. 2001). This burden, at the pleading stage, must
be met by pleading sufficient allegations to show a proper
basis for the federal court to assert subject matter
jurisdiction over the action. McNutt v. General Motors
Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936). A plaintiff
may establish either federal question jurisdiction or
diversity jurisdiction. Federal question jurisdiction is
established by pleading a “colorable claim
‘arising under' the Constitution or laws of the
United States.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546
U.S. 500, 513 (2006) (citations omitted); 28 U.S.C. §
Prior Notice of Deficiencies
noted, the Court has previously alerted Mr. Amrani to his
failure to adequately invoke federal question
jurisdiction. Dkts. #14, #38, ...