Asmelashe v. Guess
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:21-cv-03018
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Asmelashe v. Guess, Judge Corl found no federal jurisdiction but allowed amendment within 30 days.
Almaz Asmelashe was given 30 days to amend her complaint to identify a basis for federal jurisdiction; Lee Guess remained the named defendant.
What happened
In Asmelashe v. Guess, Almaz Asmelashe sued her landlord, Lee Guess, over alleged rent disputes, eviction efforts, harassment, threats, and unsafe housing conditions. She filed without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees.
The court reviewed the complaint before service and found that it did not show a basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction. The claims appeared to arise under state law, and although the complaint alleged $800,000 in damages, it did not establish the required diversity of citizenship.
The court gave Asmelashe 30 days to file an amended complaint identifying separate claims and facts supporting federal jurisdiction. The order was signed by Jacqueline Scott Corl, United States Magistrate Judge.
The detailed version
- Asmelashe v. Guess · No. 3:21-cv-03018
- Vince Chhabria
- June 1, 2021
Background
Almaz Asmelashe sued Lee Guess, whom she identified as her landlord. She alleged that Guess demanded rent in cash, pursued an unlawful-detainer action, failed to provide certain receipts and a signed lease, appeared at her apartment late at night demanding rent, and made statements she considered threatening, disrespectful, or sexually inappropriate. She also alleged rodent problems, harassment and threats involving other tenants, stolen mail, and conduct that led her to move her children to a family member’s home and seek two restraining orders.
Asmelashe proceeded without a lawyer and had previously been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court therefore screened her complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which requires screening of such complaints before service and permits dismissal if a complaint is frivolous, fails to state a claim, or has a complete defense apparent on its face.
Jurisdictional analysis
The court held that the complaint did not establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction. Although the complaint was titled “Illegal Conviction,” the claims the court identified involved damages, emotional distress, sexual harassment, alleged efforts to force Asmelashe to move, future medical expenses, quiet enjoyment, and California Civil Code § 1941.1. The court explained that these allegations and state-law claims did not present a federal question on the face of the complaint. It also explained that factual allegations are not themselves separate causes of action.
The complaint alleged $800,000 in damages, which exceeded the amount required for diversity jurisdiction, but the court stated that the complaint did not establish diversity of citizenship. The court observed that, because Guess was alleged to be Asmelashe’s landlord, he was likely also a California resident, which would defeat the required diversity. The opinion does not make a final factual finding about either party’s citizenship.
Disposition
The court did not state that it was dismissing the complaint. Instead, it gave Asmelashe 30 days to file an amended complaint. The court instructed her to use separate numbered paragraphs for factual allegations and claims and to identify the facts and claims, if any, that would provide a basis for federal jurisdiction. The order was signed by Jacqueline Scott Corl, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.