White v. PayPal, Inc.

Background

Todd White, proceeding without a lawyer, filed state-law claims against PayPal, Inc. for breach of contract, fraud, and violations of California Business and Professions Code section 17200 and following sections. He also applied to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

Jurisdiction

The court granted White’s application to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Because the complaint asserted state-law claims, it did not establish federal-question jurisdiction. Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu ordered White to clarify whether he claimed diversity jurisdiction, which generally requires the opposing parties to be citizens of different states.

White responded that PayPal’s principal place of business was in Delaware. After taking judicial notice of PayPal’s corporate Statement of Information, Judge Ryu found that PayPal’s principal executive office was in San Jose, California, and concluded that both parties were citizens of California. The court therefore found no diversity jurisdiction.

White also attempted to add a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 241. The court explained that Title 18 contains federal criminal statutes and that those statutes may be prosecuted only by the United States government, so the attempted claim did not establish jurisdiction.

Ruling

Judge Orrick adopted Magistrate Judge Ryu’s report and recommendation. The order states that the application to proceed without prepaying filing fees was granted and that the case was dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court granted White leave to amend within 20 days of February 27, 2020. No objections to the report and recommendation had been filed.

Disposition

The application to proceed without prepaying filing fees was GRANTED. The case was DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, with leave to amend within 20 days.