“the party asserting diversity 7 jurisdiction bears the burden of proof.”
How later courts described this case
- “the party asserting diversity 7 jurisdiction bears the burden of proof.”
- stating that diversity jurisdiction requires 12 “complete diversity of citizenship”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SARA CATARINA REIS SANTOS No. 1:20-cv-00109-LJO-SKO
11
Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR
12 LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION
13 v.
14
CHARLES REIS IV, et al., (Doc. No. 1)
15
Defendant.
16
17
18 Plaintiff Sara Catarina Reis Santos, appearing pro se, filed her complaint initiating this
19 action on January 21, 2020. (Doc. No. 1.) From the court’s initial review of the complaint, it
20 appears that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider the claims presented therein.
21 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and lack inherent or general subject matter
22 jurisdiction. Federal courts can adjudicate only those cases which the United States Constitution
23 and Congress authorize them to adjudicate. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375
24 (1994). To proceed in federal court, a plaintiff’s pleading must establish the existence of subject
25 matter jurisdiction. Generally, there are two potential bases for federal subject matter
26 jurisdiction: (1) federal question jurisdiction, or (2) diversity jurisdiction.
27 “[A] case ‘arises under’ federal law either where federal law creates the cause of action or
28 ‘where the vindication of a right under state law necessarily turn[s] on some construction of
1 federal law.’” Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 1088–89 (9th Cir. 2002)
2 (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 8–9 (1983)).
3 The presence or absence of federal question jurisdiction is governed by the “well-pleaded
4 complaint rule.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Under that rule,
5 “federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s
6 properly pleaded complaint.” Id.
7 Here, plaintiff has not checked either jurisdictional option (“federal question” or
8 “diversity”) on her form complaint. (Doc. No. 1 at 3.) Moreover, the complaint does not appear
9 to contain any allegation of a violation arising under the Constitution, federal law, or treaties of
10 the United States. Instead, plaintiff appears to be asserting claims of wrongful termination
11 against two separate employers, Taco Bell and Livingston Community Health, allegedly
12 occurring on separate occasions. (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff’s complaint and its incorporated attachments
13 suggest plaintiff was terminated from (or her employment otherwise ended at) Taco Bell in
14 Livingstone, California on April 1, 2016, after plaintiff complained about sanitary issues in the
15 restroom facilities there. (See id. at 9–11.) The complaint separately asserts that Livingston
16 Community Health wrongfully terminated plaintiff more than two years later, on May 19, 2018,
17 in retaliation for her voicing complaints about, among other things, how Livingstone Community
18 Health handled walk-in patients. (See id. at 18–27.) In the section of the complaint form that
19 inquires as to the basis for federal question jurisdiction, plaintiff mentions a “law enforcement
20 record by [National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)] Case 32-CA-205510.” (Id. at 4.) Apart
21 from this, it is entirely unclear how plaintiff’s claims purportedly arise under federal law. While
22 the NLRB is a federal agency, plaintiff fails to identify or even suggest what federal law any of
23 her claims arise under.
24 Alternatively, under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, federal district courts have original jurisdiction over
25 civil actions in diversity cases “where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of
26 $75,000” and where the matter is between “citizens of different states.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
27 “Subject matter jurisdiction based upon diversity of citizenship requires that no defendant have
28 the same citizenship as any plaintiff.” Tosco Corp. v. Communities for a Better Env’t, 236 F.3d
1 495, 499 (9th Cir. 2001), abrogated on other grounds by Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77
2 (2010). “A plaintiff suing in federal court must show in his pleading, affirmatively and distinctly,
3 the existence of whatever is essential to federal jurisdiction, and, if he does not do so, the court
4 . . . on discovering the [defect], must dismiss the case, unless the defect be corrected by
5 amendment.” Id. (quoting Smith v. McCullough, 270 U.S. 456 (1926)); see also Kanter v.
6 Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857-858 (9th Cir. 2001) (“the party asserting diversity
7 jurisdiction bears the burden of proof.”).
8 Here, plaintiff’s complaint alleges that she and at least one of the named defendants are
9 residents of California (see Doc. No. 1 at 1–2), which destroys the requisite complete diversity in
10 this case. See Cook v. AVI Casino Enterprises, Inc., 548 F.3d 718, 722 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing
11 Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996) (stating that diversity jurisdiction requires
12 “complete diversity of citizenship”)).
13 This court has an independent duty to consider its own subject matter jurisdiction, whether
14 or not the issue is raised by the parties and must dismiss an action over which it lacks jurisdiction.
15 See Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th
16 Cir. 1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); see also Cal. Diversified Promotions, Inc. v. Musick, 505
17 F.2d 278, 280 (9th Cir. 1974) (“It has long been held that a judge can dismiss sua sponte for lack
18 of jurisdiction.”). Here, it appears that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claims
19 presented in plaintiff’s complaint.
20 On February 21, 2020, plaintiff was ordered to show cause why this case should not be
21 dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and/or why the court should not dismiss one of
22 the named defendants due to misjoinder. (Doc. No. 7.) Plaintiff was given fourteen (14) days to
23 respond. (Id.) On March 12, 2020, after the relevant deadline expired, plaintiff filed a request for
24 an extension of time indicating that she “ha[s not] found an attorney” and “need[s] more time.”
25 (Doc. No. 8.) Because it was plaintiff’s first request for an extension of time, her request was
26 filed within one week of the relevant filing deadline, and plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court
27 granted her request for an extension on March 17, 2020, and ordered plaintiff to respond in thirty
28 (30) days. (Doc. No. 9.) The court previously warned plaintiff that if she failed to respond to the
WAS 466 UV VOUYER AEE SINS VUE PIR ee AY ST
1 | order show cause in a timely fashion, the court would dismiss the entire complaint. (Doc. No. 7.)
The court further advised plaintiff that any further requests for extensions of time had to be
3 | supported by a compelling showing of good cause other than that already presented to the court in
her first request. (Doc. No. 9.) The deadline for plaintiff to respond to the order to show cause
5 | has expired and no response thereto has been filed by plaintiff.
6 CONCLUSION
7 For the foregoing reasons, the court DISMISSES plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject
8 | matter jurisdiction. Therefore, the court need not reach the issue of misjoinder. Accordingly, the
Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE.
10
ll IT IS SO ORDERED. ~ ‘is
12| Dated: _ May 11, 2020 LL 1 Yrod
B UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28