Kip Pierce v. Lisa Heiple et al
| Kip Pierce |
| Does and Lisa Heiple |
| 2:2016cv00429 |
| January 20, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Percy Anderson |
| Rozella A. Oliver |
| Other Fraud |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
6
MINUTE ORDER (In Chambers) ORDER DISMISSING CASE by Judge Percy Anderson. Before this Court is a Complaint filed by plaintiff Kip Pierce, who is appearing pro se, against defendant Lisa Heiple. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges claims for declarato ry relief, conversion, fraud, defamation, negligent infliction of emotional distress, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process. Despite the Complaint's failure to adequately allege the Court's subject matter jurisdiction, a district cou rt may, and should, grant leave to amend when it appears that subject matter jurisdiction may exist, even though the complaint inadequately alleges jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend the Complaint to attempt to establi sh federal subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, if any, shall be filed no later than February 1, 2016. The failure to file a First Amended Complaint by that date or to adequately allege the Court's jurisdiction may result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice. See document for details. (smo)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
