James Metz v. Jerilyn Brown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JS-6

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES—

GENERAL

Case No. 5:24-cv-02112-SSS-SPx Date August 19, 2025

Title James Metz v. Jerilyn Brown

Present: The Honorable SUNSHINE S. SYKES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Irene Vazquez Not Reported

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s):

None Present None Present

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR

LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION [DKT. 57]

This case arises from a private property dispute between Plaintiff James

Metz and Defendant Jerilyn Brown. Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief finding that

Defendant is an involuntary trustee and Defendant’s claim to title and possession

of the property at issue violates his Fourteenth Amendment Rights. [Dkt. 1 at 6;

Dkt. 18 at 4–5].

Defendant previously filed a motion to dismiss, arguing Plaintiff’s claims

were not ripe, failed to state claims upon which relief could be granted, and that

this Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law

claims. [See Dkt. 28]. Because Defendant failed to comply with Local Rule 7-3 in

filing the motion, this Court denied Defendant’s motion without prejudice. [Dkt.

37]. Plaintiff subsequently moved for entry of default judgment against Defendant.

[Dkt. 47]. Defendant filed a motion to vacate the entry of default. [Dkt. 49].

After reviewing the parties’ motions, this Court ordered Plaintiff to show

cause why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. [Dkt. 57]. Plaintiff submitted his response on July 24, 2025. [Dkt.

58]. Having reviewed the parties’ arguments, relevant legal authority, and record

in this case, this case is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Federal district courts “have an independent obligation to determine whether

subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any

party.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006).

Plaintiff’s response to the OSC states that this Court has subject-matter

jurisdiction over this case under § 1331 because the amended complaint alleges

violations of his constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and

because he seeks to challenge the constitutionality of California state statutes.

[Dkt. 58 at 2]. However, Plaintiff’s assertion alone does not sufficiently

demonstrate that subject-matter jurisdiction exists in this case from the face of the

complaint.

Fourteenth Amendment claims “apply only to state action and not to

‘individual invasion of individual rights.’” Martin v. Pac. Nw. Bell Tel. Co., 441

F.2d 1116, 1118 (9th Cir. 1971). Thus, violation of such constitutional rights is

actionable, under federal law, only when committed by one who is “clothed with

the authority of the state and purporting to act thereunder.” Marshall v. Sawyer,

301 F.2d 639 (9th Cir. 1962). The amended complaint neither asserts that

Defendant is a state actor, nor does any pleading reflect that Defendant acts under

state authority. Consequently, there is no assertion of federal question or diversity

jurisdiction.

For the above reasons, because Plaintiff has failed to carry his burden of

showing subject matter jurisdiction exists, this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.