Shannon O. Murphy v. Keller/Postman LLC

Background

Shannon O. Murphy, proceeding without a lawyer and seeking to proceed without paying filing fees, sued Keller/Postman LLC. He claimed $350,000 in damages. The complaint alleged that Murphy tried to consult a Keller Postman attorney, possibly about his treatment at a Veterans Affairs facility or injuries at Camp Lejeune. According to the opinion, the firm sent emails, including requests concerning health information, but did not accommodate his request for a consultation. Murphy identified claims including negligence, breach of contract, discrimination, harassment based on unfair emails, and assault.

The case was initially filed in the Eastern District of California and was transferred to the Northern District of California. Before ordering the United States Marshal to serve the complaint, the court screened it under the statute governing complaints filed by people who seek to proceed without paying filing fees.

Jurisdiction

The court explained that federal courts can hear cases involving a federal question or diversity jurisdiction. It found no federal claim establishing federal-question jurisdiction.

The defendant is a limited liability company. For diversity jurisdiction, such a company has the citizenship of all its owners or members. The opinion said Keller/Postman LLC had offices in several states and the District of Columbia, and that one of its partners was licensed in California and the District of Columbia. The court said diversity jurisdiction would exist if none of the company’s members resided in California, but would not exist if any member resided in California. The complaint did not provide enough information for the court to resolve that issue.

Insufficient Facts

The court said the complaint did not provide enough facts to evaluate Murphy’s claims. It explained that Murphy did not need to identify precise legal theories, but did need to explain what happened, who did it, and why he believed he was entitled to relief.

The facts alleged showed only that Murphy asked for a consultation, potentially concerning a Camp Lejeune claim, and that the law firm did not provide one. The court said that this did not state a claim. It also noted that, under California law, an attorney-client relationship is established when someone seeking legal advice consults an attorney and obtains that advice. Murphy did not allege that Keller/Postman LLC provided him with legal advice. The court further noted that the firm’s website stated that it was no longer accepting new Camp Lejeune clients.

Ruling

The court did not dismiss the complaint at this stage. It ordered Murphy to file a supplement by December 1, 2025, adding allegations addressing the deficiencies and explaining the facts supporting his claims and the court’s jurisdiction. If he did not do so, the complaint might be dismissed without prejudice to pursuing any viable claims in state court. The court also stated that Murphy could voluntarily dismiss his claims by filing a one-page notice, which would be without prejudice to pursuing viable state-court claims.

Judge Laurel Beeler signed the screening order.