Johnson v. Veritas Investment Inc

Background

James Ellis Johnson filed a complaint against Veritas Investment Inc, GreenTree Property Management, Inc., Jessica Castorena, and Ehsan Panah. Johnson represented himself. He alleged that the defendants caused him physical and emotional injuries through several acts, including illegally entering his apartment, removing soundproofing, attempting to poison him, attacking him while he slept, and slandering him.

Johnson checked the form complaint’s box for federal-question jurisdiction. His listed claims included negligence, assault, battery, attempted murder, slander, defamation, and illegal entry. The opinion also refers to a possible claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, a federal statute, but Johnson alleged that the defendants were negligent because they failed to stop an attack on their property—not because of credit reporting.

Jurisdictional analysis

The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning they argued that the federal court lacked legal authority to hear the case. Federal-question jurisdiction generally requires a claim created by federal law or a claim that necessarily depends on resolving a substantial federal-law issue.

The court concluded that the complaint did not state a colorable federal claim. It characterized Johnson’s allegations as claims arising under state common law and state statutes. Although the complaint cited the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the court found that Johnson did not allege negligent noncompliance with that statute and made no reference to credit reporting. The court therefore held that federal-question jurisdiction was absent.

The court also considered diversity jurisdiction, which generally requires opposing parties to be citizens of different states and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. The court found no diversity jurisdiction because Johnson alleged that he lived in San Francisco, California; the corporate defendants were California-based; and Castorena and Panah were domiciled in California. The complaint also listed California addresses for all defendants.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin dismissed the complaint without prejudice, meaning the order did not bar Johnson from filing an amended complaint. The court set February 26, 2024, as the deadline for an amended complaint and stated that any amendment had to allege a federal-law violation or facts establishing diversity jurisdiction as to the existing defendants. The order also stated that Johnson could not add defendants without the court’s permission.