Sobayo v. Ally Bank
- Susan Illston
- 3:20-cv-08470
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Sobayo v. Ally Bank, Judge Illston granted fee-waiver status, dismissed the complaint without prejudice, and took the defendants’ dismissal motion off calendar as moot.
Nathaniel Basola Sobayo may amend his complaint to address the missing legal claims and jurisdictional allegations. Ally Bank and the other defendants’ motion to dismiss was taken off calendar as moot.
What happened
In Sobayo v. Ally Bank, Nathaniel Basola Sobayo sought damages after defendants allegedly stole or wrongfully repossessed his 2011 black Cadillac Escalade. He requested $100,000 in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages, and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court granted that request but screened the complaint. It found that the complaint did not state any legal claims and did not establish federal jurisdiction. The court said the alleged conversion of the Cadillac appeared to arise under California law, and that the complaint did not establish either a federal-law claim or diversity jurisdiction.
Judge Susan Illston dismissed the complaint without prejudice and allowed Sobayo to file an amended complaint addressing the missing claims and jurisdiction. The court stated that the action would be dismissed with prejudice if no amended complaint was filed by the stated deadline, and took the defendants’ motion to dismiss off calendar as moot.
The detailed version
- Sobayo v. Ally Bank · No. 3:20-cv-08470
- Susan Illston
- Jan. 4, 2021
Background
Nathaniel Basola Sobayo filed an action seeking damages from Ally Bank and other defendants. He alleged that the defendants stole or wrongfully repossessed his 2011 black Cadillac Escalade. He sought $100,000 in compensatory damages and $10,000,000 in punitive damages.
Sobayo also moved to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the filing fee. He stated that he was not employed, received Social Security, and was eligible for COVID-19 relief, but that those amounts barely covered his rent and other living expenses.
Court’s Analysis
The court granted the motion to proceed without paying the filing fee. It then screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires dismissal of an action filed without payment of the filing fee if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from a defendant protected from that relief. The court noted that pleadings filed without a lawyer must be read liberally.
The court found that the complaint failed to state any causes of action. It also found that the complaint failed to establish subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court’s legal authority to hear the case. The court explained that federal jurisdiction generally exists when a case arises under federal law or when the parties are citizens of different states. The court stated that the plaintiff and at least some defendants appeared to be California residents. It further stated that, although the complaint did not expressly identify causes of action, the allegations concerning conversion of the Cadillac appeared to arise under California law. The court therefore found that the complaint did not establish jurisdiction under either federal-question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction.
Disposition
The court DISMISSED the complaint WITHOUT prejudice. It allowed the plaintiff to file an amended complaint addressing both the failure to state causes of action and the jurisdictional problem. The opinion states that the amended complaint was due on February 1, 2020, although that date precedes the opinion’s January 4, 2021 date. The court stated that the action would be dismissed WITH prejudice if no amended complaint was filed. The defendants’ motion to dismiss was taken off calendar as MOOT. Judge Susan Illston signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.