Case 2:19-cv-10882-AB-E Document 30 Filed 05/27/20 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #:271

Case 2:19-cv-10882-AB-E Document 30 Filed 05/27/20 Page 2 of 9 Page ID #:272

Finding this matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument, the
Court vacated the hearing in this matter and took Defendants’ motions under
submission pursuant to Central District of California Local Rule (“Local Rule”)
7-15. (Dkt. No. 28.) For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and DENIES Defendants’ Special Motion to Strike as
MOOT. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action from this Court for lack
of subject-matter jurisdiction without prejudice.

I. BACKGROUND

On December 26, 2019, Plaintiff filed his Complaint alleging a sole cause of
action for “Declaratory Relief.” (Complaint (“Compl.”), Dkt. No. 1.) The
Complaint asserts that IMDb posted the wrong information—specifically, the
release date, alternative titles, and distributor information—for Warrior, a feature
film that Plaintiff purportedly produced, on Warrior’s public IMDB webpage.
(Compl. ¶¶ 13–14, 16, 20.) The Complaint further asserts that while Warrior’s
production was completed in 2002 (id. ¶ 12), the film has not yet been distributed
or released to the public (id. ¶ 16).

Through this lawsuit, Plaintiff asks IMDb to (1) change Warrior’s release
date from 2002 to either “the year 2019 or 2020” (id. ¶ 17), and (2) remove
alternative titles and distributor information on Warrior’s IMDb webpage, (id. at
8–9, Prayer for Relief). Plaintiff alleges that he asked Defendants to make these
changes, but because they did not do so, he initiated this action seeking declaratory
relief and $500,000,000 in damages. (Id. ¶ 17–18, 22.)

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

a. Pro Se Pleadings

Courts have a duty to construe a pro se plaintiff’s pleadings liberally.

Bernhardt v. Los Angeles County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003). The Supreme
Court has established that pro se complaints must be held to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
519, 520 (1972). Here, while Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he is a lawyer, and the
Court assumes his familiarity with court rules and legal standards. (See Compl. at 1
(reflecting Plaintiff’s California Bar number); Opp’n at 4:24–27 (noting that
Plaintiff “has a J.D. Degree and is an attorney licensed to practice law in the State
of California”)). Regardless, a pro se complaint must adhere to the requirements of

CV-90 (12/02) CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk CB

2
Case 2:19-cv-10882-AB-E Document 30 Filed 05/27/20 Page 3 of 9 Page ID #:273

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 8(a). Baldwin County Welcome Ctr. v.
Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 152 (1984).

b. 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter

Jurisdiction

Rule 8 requires the complaint to contain “a short and plain statement of the
grounds for the court’s jurisdiction[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). Under Rule
12(b)(1), a defendant may challenge the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over an
action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). A Rule 12(b)(1) motion may be asserted either as a
facial challenge to the complaint or a factual challenge. Safe Air for Everyone v.
Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). In a facial challenge, the defendant
asserts that the allegations in the complaint are insufficient on their face to invoke
federal jurisdiction. Id.; Warren v. Fox Family Worldwide, Inc., 328 F.3d 1136,
1139 (9th Cir. 2003).

“The party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving the case
is properly in federal court.” In re Ford Motor Co./Citibank (S.Dakota), N.A., 264
F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.,
298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936)); see also Chandler v. State Farm. Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
598 F.3d 1115, 1122 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.,
511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)). At the pleading stage, a plaintiff can meet this burden
by pleading sufficient allegations to show a proper basis for the court’s subject-
matter jurisdiction over the action. McNutt, 298 U.S. at 189; see also St. Paul
Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288 n.10 (1938) (stating that a
plaintiff must “allege with sufficient particularity the facts creating jurisdiction”).

A plaintiff seeking to invoke federal court jurisdiction must plead at least

one of two bases: (1) federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or
(2) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186,
198 (1962) (holding that federal courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction if “the
cause either does not ‘arise under’ the Federal Constitution, laws, or treaties[;] . . .
or is not a ‘case or controversy’ within the meaning of that section; or the cause is
not one described by any jurisdictional statute”).

To establish federal question jurisdiction, “the pleader must show that he has
alleged a claim under federal law and that the claim is not frivolous.” Kasbarian v.
JPmorgan Chase Bank, No. 2:15-cv-09073-CAS(MRWx), 2016 WL 471219, at *2
(C.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2016) (citation omitted); 28 U.S.C. § 1331. To establish
diversity jurisdiction, a plaintiff must show that the amount in controversy exceeds

CV-90 (12/02) CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk CB

3
Case 2:19-cv-10882-AB-E Document 30 Filed 05/27/20 Page 4 of 9 Page ID #:274

$75,000 and that the action is between citizens of different states, thereby
satisfying complete diversity. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). “If 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).

III. DISCUSSION

a. Failure to File a Timely Opposition

Plaintiff filed his Opposition to Defendants’ Motion six days late. Because
Defendants’ Motion was noticed for a May 8, 2020 hearing, pursuant to Local Rule
7-9, Plaintiff’s Opposition was due on April 17, 2020, but he filed it on April 23,
2020. L.R. 7-9. Defendants ask the Court to disregard Plaintiff’s untimely filing
and grant Defendants’ Motion under Local Rule 7-12, which provides that “[t]he
failure to file any required document . . . within the deadline, may be deemed
consent to the granting or denial of a motion.” L.R. 7-12; (see Reply at 2–3).

Plaintiff provides no explanation for his tardy Opposition. While Plaintiff is

proceeding pro se, he is a licensed attorney and active member of the California
Bar, and thus should be familiar with the rules of this Court. (Compl. at 1; Opp’n at
4:24–27.) Still, generally “[l]ack of familiarity with the Court’s rules is not an
acceptable excuse for untimely filing.” Moore v. LaHabra Relocations, Inc., 501 F.
Supp. 2d 1278, 1279 (C.D. Cal. 2007). Such untimely filings often have
consequences. “Noncompliance with the Local Rules . . . prejudices the opposing
party by limiting preparation time for opposing papers,” as was the case here. Id.
Plaintiff’s late Opposition left Defendants with only one day to prepare and
successfully file their Reply before the April 24, 2020 deadline.

“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for

dismissal.” Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). But “[b]efore
dismissing the action, the district court is required to weigh several factors: ‘(1) the
public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to
manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy
favoring disposition of cases of their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic
sanctions.’” Id. (citing Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.
1986)). In consideration of these factors—especially the weighty interest in
resolving cases on their merits, the limited prejudice to Defendants, and the
availability of less drastic sanctions through a resolution of this Motion on other
grounds—the Court allows Plaintiff’s late Opposition and proceeds to the
jurisdictional analysis.

CV-90 (12/02) CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk CB

4
Case 2:19-cv-10882-AB-E Document 30 Filed 05/27/20 Page 5 of 9 Page ID #:275

b. 12(b)(1) Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

Here, Plaintiff has not met his burden of establishing federal subject-matter
jurisdiction, or in other words, of “proving the case is properly in federal court.” In
re Ford Motor Co., 264 F.3d at 957. The Complaint lacks any “short and plain
statement” with sufficient allegations to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8(a)(1).

Plaintiff fails to plead either federal question or diversity jurisdiction to

maintain an action in this Court. The Complaint cites provisions of the California
Code of Civil Procedure addressing venue in state court, but this is insufficient to
establish subject-matter jurisdiction in federal court. (Compl. ¶ 10 (“This Court
has jurisdiction over this action and venue is proper in this Court pursuant to
California Code of Civil Procedure sections 395(a) and 395.5”)). Even when
presented with these defects by Defendants’ Motion, Plaintiff did not attempt to
show in his Opposition how either federal question or diversity jurisdiction is
satisfied. Instead, he repeats the same California venue provisions asserted in his
Complaint. (See Opp’n at 10.)

i. The Complaint fails to allege federal question jurisdiction

The Complaint fails to allege federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1331, as it does not assert a federal claim. As Defendants point out, while the
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, created a remedy of declaratory
judgment, the statute “does not itself confer federal subject matter jurisdiction.”
Fidelity & Cas. Co. v. Reserve Ins. Co., 596 F.2d 914, 916 (9th Cir. 1979). Thus,
Plaintiff’s sole cause of action for “declaratory relief” does not raise a federal
question, and Plaintiff does not argue to the contrary.

ii. The Complaint fails to allege diversity jurisdiction

The Complaint also fails to allege diversity jurisdiction, because it does not
adequately allege either of the two required elements: (1) complete diversity of the
parties and (2) an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. See, e.g., Bernal v.
Comerica Bank, No. CV 10-04631 MMM (FMOx), 2010 WL 3037259, at *3
(C.D. Cal. July 30, 2010) (dismissing case because plaintiffs’ “allegation that they
are residents of California fails to establish their citizenship”; “[p]laintiffs also fail
to plead the citizenship of all defendants”; and “[a]lthough the court normally
defers to the statement of damages presented in the complaint,” it was not clear

CV-90 (12/02) CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk CB

5
Case 2:19-cv-10882-AB-E Document 30 Filed 05/27/20 Page 6 of 9 Page ID #:276

that the jurisdictional amount was satisfied) (internal quotations and citations
omitted).

1. The Complaint fails to allege complete diversity

“Absent unusual circumstances, a party seeking to invoke diversity

jurisdiction should be able to allege affirmatively the actual citizenship of the
relevant parties.” Wingfield v. Target Corp., No. CV 09–2663 PA (MANx), 2009
WL 1068867, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2009) (emphasis added) (quoting Kanter v.
Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001)).

Here, “Plaintiff fails to allege the citizenship of either himself or Defendants

and, instead, only alleges residency.” Flores v. Popova, No. CV 19-1379-
JFW(GJSx), 2019 WL 4238868, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2019).2 Rather than
allege actual citizenship, Plaintiff alleges only that he “is and, at all times
mentioned herein, was an individual who resides in the County of Los Angeles,
Cities of Pacific Palisades and Torrance, and el Monte in the State of California.”
(Compl. ¶ 1) (emphasis added). This allegation is insufficient for purposes of
diversity jurisdiction “[b]ecause a party’s residence and citizenship are not
necessarily the same.” Wingfield, 2009 WL 1068867 at *1.

Further, Plaintiff has not alleged the actual citizenship of either Defendant.
Instead, Plaintiff has pled only that Amazon and IMDb “[are], and at all times
mentioned herein [were], [] Corporation[s] organized under the laws of the State of
Washington and doing business in the County of Los Angeles and City of Los
Angeles in the State of California[.]” (Compl. ¶¶ 2.) But a corporation is “a citizen
of every State . . . by which it has been incorporated and of the state . . . where it
has its principal place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) (emphasis added).
While Plaintiff has alleged that Defendants are both incorporated in Washington,
he has not alleged Defendants’ principal places of business.

Thus, because Plaintiff has failed to allege his own citizenship and
Defendants’ principal places of business, Plaintiff has failed to allege complete

2
This defect is one that Plaintiff should be able to cure, as he is best poised to
allege his own citizenship. However, because the Court finds that the amount in
controversy requirement cannot be met (as explained below), the Court denies
Plaintiff leave to amend the parties’ citizenship.

CV-90 (12/02) CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk CB

6
Case 2:19-cv-10882-AB-E Document 30 Filed 05/27/20 Page 7 of 9 Page ID #:277

diversity between the parties, and does not satisfy the first requirement of diversity
jurisdiction.3

2. The Complaint fails to satisfy the amount-in-

controversy requirement

Even if Plaintiff had properly alleged diversity of citizenship, or could do so,

Plaintiff still fails to satisfy the second prong of diversity jurisdiction because he
did not plausibly allege the amount in controversy.

“Where the plaintiff originally files in federal court, ‘the amount in

controversy is determined from the face of the pleadings.’” Geographic
Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka ex rel. Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1106 (9th Cir.
2010) (quoting Crum v. Circus Enters., 231 F.3d 1129, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000)).
Courts apply the “legal certainty” test to determine whether a complaint meets the
amount-in-controversy requirement. Naffe v. Frey, 789 F.3d 1030, 1039 (9th Cir.
2015). Under this test, “the sum claimed by the plaintiff controls if the claim is
apparently made in good faith. It must appear to a legal certainty that the claim is
really for less than the jurisdictional amount to justify dismissal.” St. Paul
Mercury, 303 U.S. at 288–89. “[M]aking a claim in ‘good faith’ means that a
plaintiff’s ‘estimations of the amounts recoverable must be realistic. The inquiry
should be objective and not based on fanciful, pie-in-the-sky, or simply wishful
amounts, because otherwise the policy to limit diversity jurisdiction will be
frustrated.’” Choudhuri v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 15-cv-03608-VC, 2016
WL 3212454, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 10, 2016) (quoting Samuel–Bassett v. KIA
Motors Am., Inc., 357 F.3d 392, 403 (3d Cir. 2004)). Even in liberally construing a
complaint, the Court must still have some allegations from which it “may infer a
good faith basis for recovery of damages in such an amount.” Neat-N-Tidy Co. v.
Tradepower (Holdings) Ltd., 777 F. Supp. 1153, 1156 (S.D.N.Y. 1991).

3
The Ninth Circuit has clarified that “[a] plaintiff should be permitted to amend a
complaint to cure ‘technical’ defects,” including “alleging diversity jurisdiction
based on residency rather than citizenship and failing to allege principal place of
business of a corporation.” Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Team Equipment, Inc., 741
F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2014). The Court would allow Plaintiff leave to amend
to cure these defects here, but because the Court finds that the amount in
controversy requirement cannot be met (as explained below), the Court finds that
any amendment to assert federal jurisdiction would be futile. See Flowers v. First
Hawaiian Bank, 295 F.3d 966, 976 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[a] district court [] does not
abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend where amendment would be futile”).

CV-90 (12/02) CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk CB

7
Case 2:19-cv-10882-AB-E Document 30 Filed 05/27/20 Page 8 of 9 Page ID #:278

Here, the only allegations from the Compliant that could be construed as
attempts to satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement are Plaintiff’s
conclusory assertions that he is “entitled to the payment to him in the amount of
Five Hundred Million Dollars ($500,000,000) with interest thereon,” (Compl. ¶
22), and that he has been “damaged in an amount to be proven at trial of no less
than Five Hundred Million Dollars ($500,000,000),” (id. ¶ 23). How did Plaintiff
arrive at this number? The Complaint offers no answer. Plaintiff fails to plausibly
plead how the harm he allegedly suffered (the mis-labeling of a film’s release date
on IMDb and the improper posting of alternative titles and distributor information)
could cause damages exceeding $75,000—let alone in the hundreds of millions of
dollars. Plaintiff’s assertion in his Opposition that the $500,000,000 “amount
would be generated by distribution of the movie through all challenges throughout
the world according to those who specialized in the projection of such amounts for
film production investment purposes” is equally conclusory and unavailing.
(Opp’n at 9.)

Courts routinely reject “conclusory, unsupported statement[s]” regarding

alleged amounts in controversy. See GMAC Mortg., LLC v. Martinez, No. CV 10–
02882 MMM (PLAx), 2010 WL 1931268, at *4 (C.D. Cal. May 10, 2010) (holding
that the amount-in-controversy requirement was not satisfied because there were
“no facts or evidence corroborating this assertion”); see also Chaudhuri, 2016 WL
3212454 at *3 (“[Plaintiff’s] bald assertion that the amount in controversy is
‘approximately $1 million’ is insufficient to establish that the amount in
controversy actually exceeds the jurisdictional threshold”); Rasidescu v. Midland
Credit Mgmt., Inc., 435 F. Supp. 2d 1090, 1096 (S.D. Cal. 2006) (“Plaintiff
provides these damage values without any comment as to how he is entitled to
these damages, or what connection these extremely large damages amounts have
with the alleged claims”); see also Kumvachirapitag v. Gates, No. 12–5075 JSC,
2012 WL 5835730, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2012) (dismissing for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction because “even if Plaintiff did seek the many
‘septillions’ of dollars listed in the Amended Complaint as damages, he failed to
link these claims to any loss he has suffered due to an action by the Defendants”).

Following suit, here the Court rejects Plaintiff’s bare allegations asserting
whopping damages of $500,000,000 as insufficiently pled to meet the amount-in-
controversy requirement. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s assertion regarding the
amount-in-controversy requirement was not made in good faith, and that his claim
cannot satisfy the jurisdictional threshold of $75,000. Accordingly, the Court
DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to establish subject-matter
jurisdiction in this Court without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

CV-90 (12/02) CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk CB

8
Case 2:19-cv-10882-AB-E Document 30 Filed 05/27/20 Page 9 of 9 Page ID #:279

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) and accordingly DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint without
prejudice. This action cannot be brought in this Court.

Because the Court determines that it lacks jurisdiction over this action, the
Court DENIES Defendants’ Special Motion to Strike as MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (12/02) CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk CB