Keay v. Home Forward, No. 3:2019cv01298 - Document 17 (D. Or. 2019)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: Upon reviewing the filings, I agree with Home Forward that this court lacks jurisdiction over this case. Mr. Keays complaint does not raise a federal question, nor is there diversity of the parties. I therefore DISMISS this case with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(1). All outstanding motions [7, 13, 15, 16] are DENIED as moot. Signed on 11/15/2019 by Judge Michael W. Mosman.(Mailed to Pro Se party on 11/15/2019.) (kms)

Download PDF
Keay v. Home Forward Doc. 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON KEVIN M. KEAY, Plaintiff, Case No. 3:19-cv-01298-MO v. HOME FORWARD, OPINION AND ORDER Defendant. MOSMAN, J., Plaintiff (“Mr. Keay”) filed his complaint [ECF 2] in this court on August 16, 2019. Defendant (“Home Forward”) filed a motion to dismiss [ECF 12] on October 23, 2019. In its motion, Home Forward argued that this court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this case and that the complaint should therefore be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(1). Mr. Keay then filed a motion to show cause [ECF 13] that I construe to be a response to Home Forward’s motion to dismiss, as it reiterates the allegations in Mr. Keay’s original complaint. In his complaint, Mr. Keay alleged that managers of his apartment building had trespassed into his home, stolen valuable items, and that they allowed his apartment to be infested with bed bugs. [2] at 4. These allegations amount to claims for trespass, theft, and violations of habitability laws. None of these claims presents a federal question, nor does Mr. 1 OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com Keay cite federal statutes or federal authority as grounds for jurisdiction, and both Mr. Keay and Home Forward are citizens of Oregon. CONCLUSION Upon reviewing the filings, I agree with Home Forward that this court lacks jurisdiction over this case. Mr. Keay’s complaint does not raise a federal question, nor is there diversity of the parties. I therefore DISMISS this case with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(1). All outstanding motions [7, 13, 15, 16] are DENIED as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 15 day of November, 2019. ____________________________ MICHAEL W. MOSMAN Chief United States District Judge 2 OPINION AND ORDER

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.