Moen v. Moen
- Donna Ryu
- 4:23-cv-00444
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Moen v. Moen, Judge Ryu granted defendants’ jurisdiction motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice because all parties were California citizens.
Carlos David Moen’s complaint was dismissed with prejudice; defendants Martha Moen and Rebecca Verdier prevailed on their motion to dismiss.
What happened
In Moen v. Moen, Carlos David Moen, representing himself, sued Martha Moen and Rebecca Verdier over an alleged failure to pay his share of assets from a trust. He brought one state-law breach-of-contract claim and said federal diversity jurisdiction existed.
Moen alleged that he was owed $30,719.99, attorneys’ fees, punitive damages, a pistol, and first-edition Jack London books. He alleged that he and the defendants were all California citizens. The defendants asked the court to dismiss the case because it lacked authority to hear it.
Judge Ryu granted the motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. She ruled that the contract claim did not present a federal question and that the parties were not citizens of different states, so diversity jurisdiction was absent. The court also discharged its order requiring Moen to explain his failure to respond and directed the Clerk to close the file.
The detailed version
- Moen v. Moen · No. 4:23-cv-00444
- Donna Ryu
- Sept. 15, 2023
Background
Carlos David Moen filed a complaint against Martha Moen and Rebecca Verdier. He represented himself. Moen alleged that the defendants were trustees of the estate of Earle and Olga Moen and that a restated trust required the two trustees and one beneficiary, Carlos Moen, to receive equal one-third shares of the assets. He alleged that the defendants had received their final distribution but had not paid him an equal share.
Moen asserted one breach-of-contract claim. He sought $30,719.99, $11,917.00 in attorneys’ fees, $32,500.01 in punitive damages, a .45 automatic Colt pistol, and first-edition Jack London books. He alleged that federal diversity jurisdiction existed. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which allows dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court’s legal authority to hear the case.
After Moen did not initially respond, the court issued an order requiring him to explain the failure and file either an opposition or a statement that he did not oppose the motion. Moen timely responded and filed an opposition, followed by a second opposition.
Jurisdiction analysis
The court explained that federal courts may exercise federal-question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. Federal-question jurisdiction requires a claim arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. The court held that Moen’s breach-of-contract claim arose under state law and therefore did not establish federal-question jurisdiction.
Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity of citizenship, meaning that every plaintiff must be a citizen of a different state from every defendant, and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000, excluding interest and costs. Moen alleged that he and the defendants were California citizens. Because the parties were not citizens of different states, the court held that the requirements for diversity jurisdiction were not met.
Disposition
Judge Donna Ryu granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The court discharged the order to show cause and directed the Clerk to close the file.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.