Lindblad v. Han Lin Auction Gallery
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:21-cv-07548
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Lindblad v. Han Lin Auction Gallery, Judge Corley screened Robert Lindblad’s complaint, found jurisdiction and pleading defects, and allowed amendment.
Robert Lindblad and the four named defendant entities were affected; the complaint was not dismissed at this stage, and Lindblad was given an opportunity to amend it.
What happened
In Lindblad v. Han Lin Auction Gallery, Robert Lindblad, representing himself, brought claims involving property at 39-49 El Camino Real in Millbrae, California. He alleged conversion of real and personal property and fraud against four entities, and sought the property, a deed or title, and money for personal property.
The court found that the complaint did not show a basis for federal jurisdiction. It stated only state-law claims, and the complaint did not show the complete diversity of citizenship required for a diversity case. The court also found that the complaint did not explain what each defendant allegedly did or give fair notice of the claims.
The court gave Lindblad an opportunity to file an amended complaint by November 29, 2021, with separate numbered paragraphs and factual support for each claim. The order warned that failure to correct the problems could lead to a recommendation that the complaint be dismissed. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley signed the order.
The detailed version
- Lindblad v. Han Lin Auction Gallery · No. 3:21-cv-07548
- Maxine Chesney
- Oct. 25, 2021
Background
Robert Lindblad proceeded without a lawyer. The court had previously granted his application to proceed without paying the filing fee and then screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
The complaint concerned a real estate dispute involving property at 39-49 El Camino Real in Millbrae, California. Lindblad named Han Lin Auction Gallery, Chien Lung Antiques, another Han Lin Auction Gallery location, and Think Tank Learning as defendants. The complaint alleged conversion of real property, conversion of personal property, and fraud. Lindblad sought the property and its deed or title, which he valued at $3,412,944, along with antiques and other personal property valued at $35,000.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that the complaint did not establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction. No federal question appeared on the face of the complaint because the claims identified were state-law claims. The court also found that the complaint did not establish complete diversity of citizenship. It stated that Lindblad and all defendants were residents of California, although the amount in controversy exceeded the amount otherwise required for diversity jurisdiction.
The court separately found that the complaint did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires a short and plain statement explaining why the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Although the complaint alleged conversion and fraud, it did not identify the specific conduct of each defendant concerning the property or the specific actions allegedly used to defraud Lindblad. As a result, the defendants were not given fair notice of the claims and the grounds supporting them.
Disposition
The court did not dismiss the complaint at this stage. Instead, it gave Lindblad until November 29, 2021, to file an amended complaint if he believed he could correct some or all of the deficiencies. The court instructed him to use separate numbered paragraphs for the allegations and each claim, and to identify the facts supporting each requested form of relief. It stated that the amended complaint must be complete by itself and warned that failure to follow the rules or cure the identified deficiencies could lead to a recommendation that the complaint be dismissed. The order was signed by Jacqueline Scott Corley, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.