Narang v. Narang

Background

Kamal Narang, who represented herself, sued seventeen individuals: Amarjit Narang, John Stanley, Bhupinder Bhandari, Mary Elizabeth Grant, Pareek Gautam, Alison S. Flowers, Swapna Anthoor, Dr. Pardeep Kumar, Kathy Sweatt, Antionique Avista, Chad Finke, Somnath Raj Chatterjee, Thomas Nixon, S. Pulido, C. Smiley, S. Sato, and S. Spain. The complaint consisted of a civil case cover sheet and approximately 130 pages of handwritten and typed notes and medical records. Although the complaint was difficult to understand in places, the court said it appeared to allege that a 2019 family-court matter in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, had become fraud and that the defendants were involved.

Narang also filed a request to expedite the case, styled as an “Ex Parte Application for cancer treatment.”

Screening and Jurisdiction

Because the case was subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the court reviewed whether it was frivolous or malicious, failed to state a claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also applied the ordinary requirement that a complaint contain a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief, while construing filings by people without lawyers liberally.

The court concluded that the case had to be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the federal court lacked legal authority to hear the dispute. It found no federal-question jurisdiction because fraud is a state-law claim. It also found no diversity jurisdiction because Narang stated that she and all defendants resided in California, so complete diversity was absent. In addition, it did not appear that Narang alleged an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.

The court observed that the allegations substantially overlapped with those in an earlier related case filed by Narang. In that earlier case, the court had required her to explain why federal subject-matter jurisdiction existed, but she did not respond, and the case was dismissed.

Disposition

The court found that amendment would be futile because Narang had already filed a substantially similar lawsuit that was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and the new case had the same basic jurisdictional problem. The court therefore dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction without prejudice and granted no leave to amend. It stated that the dismissal did not bar the claims from being filed in state court.

The request to expedite proceedings was denied as moot. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment in favor of the defendants and close the case.