Young v. Ditech Financial LLC

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE .

10 STEVEN K. YOUNG, CASE NO. C19-0867JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Vv.

3 DITECH FINANCIAL, LLC, et al., 14 . Defendants.

15 On September 3, 2019, the court ordered pro se Plaintiff Steven K. Young to show || cause for the second time why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter || jurisdiction. (See 2d OSC (Dkt. # 23) at 1 (citing 1st OSC (Dkt. # 10).) Specifically, the || court ordered Mr. Young to file a written response that: 19 (a) asserts the citizenship of each member of Ditech [Financial LLC (“Ditech”)], and if any member of Ditech is itself a limited liability company, 20 each of that company’s members, until each layer of limited liability company membership is reduced to the individual members; and (b) asserts 21 specific facts from which the court can determine whether Mr. Young’s claim falls under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e.

ORDER - 1 Ud. at 4.) The court cautioned Mr. Young that if he “fails to show cause once again, the || court will dismiss his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,” (Ud. (citing Fed. || R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Rosales v. United States, 824 F.2d 799, 803 n.4 (9th Cir. 1987)).)

4 Mr. Young filed his response on September 16, 2019. Qd OSC Resp. (Dkt.

5 ||# 24).) Init, Mr. Young asserted the citizenship of “the following Board Members of || Ditech who are citizens of the State of Pennsylvania.” (See id. at 2.) Mr. Young appears 7 confuse “director” with “member.” LLC members are those with an ownership || interest in the LLC, and are not necessarily directors. See, e. g., RCW 25.15.116. Mr. || Young does not assert that the directors he lists are all Ditech members, and if so, || whether the list of directors is the complete list of Ditech members. Therefore, Mr. |} Young has again failed to assert “the citizenship of each member of Ditech.” (See 2d || OSC at 4); see also Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 |) (9th Cir. 2006) (“We therefore join our sister circuits and hold that, like a partnership, an 14. || LLC is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.”) (emphasis || added).

16 Mr. Young also fails to assert “specific facts from which the court can determine || whether Mr. Young’s claim falls under 15 U.S.C. Section 16926.” (See generally id.; □□□ | □ || also 2d OSC Resp. at 4.) Instead, Mr. Young requests that the court transfer “this || proceeding/case to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Western District of Washington.” (See 2d || OSC Resp. at 3.) The court does not reach Mr. Young’s request to transfer, because Mr. || Young has not satisfied the court that it has subject matter jurisdiction in the first |\// ‘ORDER - 2.

1 |linstance.! See Rosales, 824 F.2d at 803 n.4 (holding that if a federal court. determines || that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction at any time during a dispute, the court must || dismiss the action).

4 Mr. Young has had several opportunities to properly assert subject matter || jurisdiction. (See Compl. (Dkt. # 1); OSC Resp.; 2d OSC Resp.) Still, he has not || asserted sufficient facts for the court to conclude that it has either diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 or federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

8 || Although Mr. Young cites a federal statute as the basis of his Fair Debt Collection || Practices Act (“FDCPA”) claim, he has not alleged facts sufficient for the court to || conclude that his claim arises under that statute.

11 Notwithstanding Mr. Young’s repeated failures to properly assert subject matter || jurisdiction, he appears to make a good-faith effort by (mistakenly) asserting the citizenships of Ditech’s directors. Considering Mr. Young’s pro se status, and his || apparently good-faith efforts, the court will afford Mr. Young one final opportunity j\ properly assert the citizenships of each and every Ditech member, and to allege specific || facts establishing that his purported FDCPA claim arises under 15 U.S.C, § 1692e.

17 Accordingly, the court ORDERS Mr. Young to file a written response to this order || within 14 days that (1) asserts the citizenship of each and every Ditech member, and (2) || alleges specific facts establishing that his purported FDCPA claim arises under 15 U.S.C. || 21 ' Additionally, Mr. Young fails to explain how his claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is a proceeding “arising under title 11 or arising in or related to a case under title 11.” See 28 USC § 157.

ORDER .3 | § 1692e. Mr. Young is instructed to limit his response to this order to the sole question of |\jurisdiction, and refrain from making requests to transfer or seeking any further relief || from the court until the court has determined it has subject matter jurisdiction over this 4 case. If Mr. Young fails to establish subject matter jurisdiction after what will now be ||Mr. Young’s fourth opportunity, the court will dismiss his complaint for lack of subject || matter jurisdiction. If the court does so, it will dismiss the case without prejudice to Mr. || Young filing proper claims in a court with jurisdiction over them.

SL 8 Dated this 6 day of November, 2019.

CDV_Z VO JAMES L. ROBART 10 United States District Judge

17 .

ORDER -4