Rajapakse v. Freelancer

Background

Samantha Delane Rajapakse filed the case representing herself. Her First Amended Complaint asserted one state-law claim for breach of contract against Freelancer, described as a foreign company doing business as escrow.com. Freelancer USA, Inc., identified in the order as a third-party defendant, moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Rajapakse also sought permission to file a second amended complaint.

The court granted requests by both sides to take judicial notice of documents concerning other federal cases filed by Rajapakse. The court also treated Rajapakse’s motion concerning an out-of-state order as a request for judicial notice.

Jurisdictional Defect

Because the complaint asserted only a state-law claim, the court considered whether it had diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction requires that the citizenship of every plaintiff differ from that of every defendant and that more than $75,000 be at issue.

The court found that Rajapakse had not pleaded the required amount. Although she sought punitive damages, the court explained that punitive damages are not available for breach-of-contract claims under California law. The court therefore concluded that it lacked diversity subject-matter jurisdiction over the case as pleaded.

The court also stated that Rajapakse appeared not to have served the correct defendant. The order said that the record was unclear about the relationship among Freelancer USA, Inc., Freelancer, and Internet Escrow Services, Inc. The court directed counsel for Freelancer USA and Internet Escrow Services to clarify that relationship in the joint case-management statement. It further stated that, to continue the suit, Rajapakse must serve the appropriate defendant and identified Internet Escrow Services, Inc., doing business as escrow.com, as the defendant she appeared to need to serve.

Ruling

Judge William H. Orrick dismissed the First Amended Complaint without prejudice. The court allowed Rajapakse to file a second amended complaint by August 7, 2025, if she could either plead an adequate and legally available jurisdictional amount or plead a federal cause of action. The court stated that the case could continue if she adequately pleaded subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court vacated Freelancer USA’s motion to dismiss and the hearing on that motion. It continued the case-management conference to September 10, 2025, and set the joint statement deadline for September 3, 2025.

The order also stated that 18 U.S.C. § 1343, the federal wire-fraud statute Rajapakse referenced, does not provide a private right to sue, so she could not use it as a cause of action in her complaint.