# Xiangbin Long v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

> District Court, C.D. California · July 25, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11108607

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, C.D. California
- **Decided:** July 25, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11108607

## Opinion text

JS-6
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4 XIANGBIN LONG, Case No. 2:24-cv-02402 CV (KESx)

5 Plaintiffs, ORDER DISMISSING CASE
WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR LACK
6 v. OF SUBJECT MATTER
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al. JURISDICTION
7
8 Defendants.
9 On July 7, 2025, the Court ordered the parties to show cause in writing by July 21,
10 2025 why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter
11 jurisdiction. Doc. # 40 (“OSC”). On July 21, 2025, Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
12 (“Wells Fargo”) filed a response to the Court’s OSC, asserting that “[b]ecause it appears
13 Plaintiff has failed to plead a substantial basis for federal question jurisdiction, the action
14 should be dismissed.” Doc. # 41 at 5. Plaintiff Xiangbin Long (“Plaintiff”) did not file a
15 timely response to the Court’s OSC.1
16 Federal courts are courts of “limited jurisdiction,” possessing “only that power
17 authorized by the Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,
18 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. District courts are presumed to
19 lack jurisdiction unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record. See
20 DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 n. 3 (2006). Additionally, federal
21 courts have an obligation to examine jurisdiction sua sponte before proceeding to the
22 merits of a case. See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999). When
23 a district court determines that there is no subject matter jurisdiction in a non-removal
24
25
26
1 The Court interprets Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the July 7, 2025 OSC as a concession that this
Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction. See C.D. Cal. L. Civ. R. 7-12 (“The failure to file any
27 required document, or the failure to file it within the deadline, may be deemed consent to the granting or
denial of the motion[.]”). Moreover, the failure to comply with this Court’s July 7, 2025 OSC alone
28 warrants dismissal without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
1 || case, dismissal without prejudice is appropriate. See Wasson v. Brown, 316 F. App’x 663,
2 || 664 (9th Cir. 2009): Parker v. Ebay, No. CV 24-1863-JFW (JCx), 2024 WL 1484598, at
3 (C_D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2024).
4 The Court has reviewed the allegations in Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint
5 ||(Doc. # 33, “FAC”) and finds that this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction.
6 || The FAC does not establish jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. “The district
7 courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy
8 ||}exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between —
9 || citizens of different States[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Plaintiff has not alleged that the
10 |}amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interests and
11 ||costs. The amount in controversy is not “facially evident” from the pleading, and
12 ‘“[c]onclusory allegations as to the amount in controversy are insufficient.” Matheson v.
13 || Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2003). Nor has Plaintiff
14 || established jurisdiction based on a federal question, as the FAC includes only two claims,
15 ||both based on California law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“The district courts shall have
16 || original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treatises of
17 || the United States.”). Although the FAC makes passing reference to federal statutes (e.g.
18 {| 32-34), “[p]assing references to federal statutes in a complaint do not create
19 || federal question jurisdiction.” Daneshrad v. Valencia, No. SACV 21-02077-CJC (KESx),
20 2022 WL 2189518, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2022).
21 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES this action WITHOUT
22 ||PREJUDICE. All other pending matters are TERMINATED and all dates and deadlines
23 this matter are VACATED. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.
24 IT IS SO ORDERED.
25 ||DATED: 7/25/25 | Yio V alunr □
26 HOW. CYNTHIA VALENZUELA
27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11108607. Public record. Not legal advice.