Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Shah v MyLife Magistrate Report

Shah v MyLife Magistrate Report

Ratings: (0)|Views: 39|Likes:
Published by Eric Goldman

More info:

Published by: Eric Goldman on Oct 17, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/17/2012

pdf

text

original

 
1 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF OREGONPORTLAND DIVISIONSHANTU N. SHAH,Plaintiff,v.MYLIFE.COM, Inc., a corporation; JEFFREYTINSLEY, Chief Executive OfficerMyLife.Com, Inc.; PETER OEY, Chief Financial Officer MyLife.Com, Inc.;GOOGLE, INC., a corporation; LARRYPAGE, Chief Executive Officer Google, Inc.’ERIC E. SCHMIDT, Executive ChairmanGoogle, Inc.; XYZ Corporations(s) and JohnDoes(s),Defendants.Case No. 3:12-cv-1592 -STFINDINGS ANDRECOMMENDATIONSTEWART, Magistrate Judge:
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff, Shantu N. Shah, appearing
 pro se
, filed a Complaint against defendants,MyLife.com, Inc., and Google, Inc., and several of their officers, as well as “XYZ Corporation(s)and John Does(s),” for a minimum of $1 billion damages because they listed her and her “familymembers’ names, ages and places in which they live” on the internet without permission and “arein a business of selling private information to third parties.” Complaint, ¶ 4. For the reasons set
Case 3:12-cv-01592-ST Document 4 Filed 09/21/12 Page 1 of 9 Page ID#: 13
 
2 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONforth below, the Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
STANDARDS
“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the courtmust dismiss the action.” FRCP 12(h)(3);
see also Cal. Diversified Promotions, Inc. v. Musick 
,505 F2d 278, 280 (9
th
Cir 1974) (“It has long been held that a judge can dismiss
suasponte
for lack of jurisdiction.”). A court must liberally construe the allegations of a
 pro se
plaintiff and afford theplaintiff the benefit of any doubt.
 Lopez v. Dep’t of Health Servs.
, 939 F2d 881, 883 (9
th
Cir1991). However, under FRCP 8(a)(2), all complaints must contain “a short and plain statementof the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” A complaint must “give thedefendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”
Conley v. Gibson
, 355 US 41, 47 (1957). This standard “does not require ‘detailed factualallegations,’” but does demand “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-meaccusation.”
 Ashcroft v. Iqbal
, 556 US 662, 678 (2009), quoting
 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
,550 US 544, 555 (2007). “A pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaicrecitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’”
 Id.
 In order to state a claim, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, acceptedas true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”
 Id 
, quoting
Twombly
, 550 US at570. When reviewing this complaint, the court must “accept all factual allegations in thecomplaint as true and construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmovingparty.”
Knievel v. ESPN 
, 393 F3d 1068,1072 (9
th
Cir 2005), citing
Cervantes v. United States
,330 F3d 1186, 1187 (9
th
Cir 2003). 
Case 3:12-cv-01592-ST Document 4 Filed 09/21/12 Page 2 of 9 Page ID#: 14
 
3 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
FINDINGS
Several defects in the Complaint require
sua sponte
dismissal.
I. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
 First, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and a case is presumed to falloutside a federal court’s jurisdiction unless proven otherwise.
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins.Co. of Am.
, 511 US 375, 377 (1994). A district court is empowered to hear only those caseswhich are within the judicial power conferred by the United States Constitution and those whichfall within the area of jurisdiction granted by Congress.
 Richardson v. United States
, 943 F2d1107, 1112-13 (9
th
Cir 1991),
cert denied 
, 503 US 936 (1992).Original jurisdiction must bebased either on diversity of citizenship, involving suits involving more than $75,000 betweencitizens of different states, 28 USC § 1332, or on a claim involving the Constitution, laws, ortreaties of the United States, 28 USC § 1331. On the Civil Cover Sheet, plaintiff invokes bothdiversity and federal question jurisdiction.
A. Diversity Jurisdiction
 Diversity jurisdiction requires that all plaintiffs be citizens of different states than alldefendants.
Pullman Co. v. Jenkins
, 305 US 534, 541 (1939). To establish diversity jurisdiction,plaintiff must allege that she is a citizen of one state, that all of the defendants are citizens of other states, and that she seeks damages of more than $75,000. Plaintiff alleges that she residesin (and presumably is a citizen of) the State of Oregon and that the amount in controversyexceeds $75,000. Complaint, ¶¶ 1, 8. Plaintiff also alleges that both MyLife.com, Inc., andGoogle, Inc., are California corporations with their main offices located in California and that theindividually named defendants are residents of California.
 Id 
, ¶¶ 2-3. Those allegationsestablish diversity of citizenship among plaintiff and most of the defendants. However, plaintiff 
Case 3:12-cv-01592-ST Document 4 Filed 09/21/12 Page 3 of 9 Page ID#: 15

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->