Quintell v. Tomko
- William Orrick
- 3:22-cv-09158
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In Quintell v. Tomko, Judge Orrick postponed adopting dismissal recommendations and required an amended complaint addressing federal jurisdiction by April 17, 2023.
Randi Quintell was required to file an amended complaint addressing federal jurisdiction and the deficiencies in her allegations by April 17, 2023; the case was not dismissed at this stage.
What happened
In Quintell v. Tomko, Randi Quintell, representing herself, alleged that her property and belongings had been stolen. The court said her filings appeared to concern an inheritance dispute involving a home and personal property, but did not clearly identify a federal claim or establish federal jurisdiction.
A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction after Quintell did not respond to an earlier order explaining the deficiencies. Judge Orrick did not adopt that recommendation at that time. Instead, he required Quintell to file an amended complaint explaining the facts, the defendant’s actions, and why the case belonged in federal court.
Judge Orrick set April 17, 2023, as the deadline. He stated that if Quintell did not file an amended complaint by then, he would proceed to adopt the recommendation and dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The detailed version
- Quintell v. Tomko · No. 3:22-cv-09158
- William Orrick
- Mar. 16, 2023
Background
Randi Quintell filed the case without a lawyer and alleged that her property and belongings had been stolen. The filings appeared to involve a dispute over the inheritance of a home in San Leandro, California, and ownership of the home’s personal property. Quintell checked the form for federal-question jurisdiction, but the court said she did not identify a violation of a federal statute or the United States Constitution. The court also said it did not appear that diversity jurisdiction existed because Quintell and Daniel Tomko appeared to reside in California.
A magistrate judge previously issued an order requiring Quintell to explain why the case should not be dismissed or to file an amended complaint. Quintell did not respond by the original deadline. The magistrate judge then issued a Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal because the court lacked diversity or subject-matter jurisdiction over the allegations.
Ruling
After Quintell filed a document titled “Request for reconsideration/appeal,” Judge Orrick stated that he would not adopt the Report and Recommendation at that time. He instead required Quintell to file an amended complaint addressing the problems identified in the earlier order. The amended complaint had to identify federal claims and supporting facts, explain what property was lost and when, describe what actions Tomko took concerning the property, and explain why the case belonged in federal court. The deadline was April 17, 2023.
The order did not dismiss the case at that time. It stated that if Quintell did not file an amended complaint by the deadline, Judge Orrick would proceed to adopt the Report and Recommendation and dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. This was a procedural order addressing jurisdiction and pleading sufficiency, not a decision on whether Quintell’s property allegations were true or legally valid.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.