1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID MOSIER Case No.: 19cv1956-LAB (LL)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 v. EXTENSION OF TIME TO AMEND; AND 14 QUALITY LOAN SERVICE

CORP., et al. 15 ORDER OF DISMISSAL Defendants. WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND 16

17 18 On October 11, the Court dismissed the complaint for failure to invoke the 19 Court’s jurisdiction. Although the complaint identified diversity as the basis for the 20 Court’s jurisdiction, it did not allege the citizenship of any of the parties. 21 Furthermore, the complaint made reference to an unlawful detainer action in state 22 court, and it appeared Plaintiff David Mosier was attempting to relitigate matters 23 already decided in that case. The Court pointed out that, if he was, this Court 24 would lack jurisdiction over those claims. See Carmona v. Carmona,

(9th Cir. 2010) (discussing Rooker-Feldman doctrine). 26 The Court permitted Mosier, no later than November 4, 2019, to amend his 27 complaint to show that the Court has jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). The 28 Court pointed out that jurisdiction is presumed to be lacking, until the party invoking 1 it (i.e., Mosier) establishes it. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511

, 377 (1994). The Court also directed Mosier’s attention to authority 3 showing how the citizenship of parties needed to be pled. 4 Instead of amending his complaint, Mosier has filed a request for more time. 5 His motion says he has recently discovered financial instruments disclosing more 6 information about Defendants. The motion is not very clear about how Mosier 7 might establish jurisdiction. But it appears he believes that by adding one or two 8 diverse Defendants, he can create diversity jurisdiction. For ordinary diversity 9 jurisdiction, however, complete diversity is required. Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 10

(2005) (“Since Strawbridge v. Curtiss,

,

[(1806)] this Court has read the statutory formulation ‘between . . . citizens of 12 different States,’

(a)(1), to require complete diversity between all 13 plaintiffs and all defendants.”) 14 Mosier has implied, though he has not alleged, that he is a California citizen. 15 Even assuming he is a California citizen and could allege that some Defendants 16 or prospective Defendants are citizens of states besides California, he must be 17 able to allege that all Defendants are citizens of other states (or of foreign 18 countries). Among other things, this would require that he affirmatively allege the 19 citizenship of necessary Defendants, such as those against whom he seeks to 20 quiet title. He has not done this, and there is no reason to think he could even if he 21 were given more time. Mosier makes other arguments in favor of jurisdiction, but 22 these are even less substantial. 23 Mosier has not shown good cause for an extension of time, and there is no 24 reason to think that he could successfully amend even if he were given more time. 25 The motion is DENIED. 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE BUT WITHOUT LEAVE 2 AMEND, for failure to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: November 5, 2019 6 (AM / 4. Bog 7 Honorable Larry Alan Burns 8 Chief United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28