Santos v. Reis ( 2020 )

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 TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS 12 CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER 13 v. JURISDICTION; AND 14 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CHARLES REIS IV, et al., CERTAIN DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT 15 BE DISMISSED FOR MISJOINDER Defendant. 16 FOURTEEN DAY DEADLINE 17 (Doc. 1) 18 19 Plaintiff Sara Catarina Reis Santos, appearing pro se, filed a complaint on January 21, 20 2020. (Doc. 1). From the court’s initial review of the complaint, it appears that the court lacks 21 subject matter jurisdiction to consider the claims presented. 22 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and lack inherent or general subject matter 23 jurisdiction. Federal courts can adjudicate only those cases which the United States Constitution 24 and Congress authorize them to adjudicate. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 25 (1994). To proceed in federal court, a plaintiff’s pleading must establish the existence of subject 26 matter jurisdiction. Generally, there are two potential bases for federal subject matter 27 jurisdiction: (1) federal question jurisdiction, or (2) diversity jurisdiction. 28 ///// 1 “[A] case ‘arises under’ federal law either where federal law creates the cause of action or 2 ‘where the vindication of a right under state law necessarily turn[s] on some construction of 3 federal law.’” Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 1088–89 (9th Cir. 2002) 4 (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 8–9 (1983)). 5 The presence or absence of federal question jurisdiction is governed by the “well-pleaded 6 complaint rule.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Under the well-pleaded 7 complaint rule, “federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face 8 of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Id. 9 Here, plaintiff has not checked either jurisdictional option (“federal question” or 10 “diversity”) on her complaint form. (Doc. No. 1 at 3.) Moreover, the complaint does not appear 11 to contain any allegation of a violation arising under the Constitution, federal law, or treaties of 12 the United States. Instead, plaintiff appears to be asserting claims of wrongful termination 13 against two separate employers, Taco Bell and Livingston Community Health, on independent 14 occasions. (Id. at 1.) The complaint and its incorporated attachments suggest plaintiff was 15 terminated from (or her employment otherwise ended at) Taco Bell in Livingstone, California on 16 April 1, 2016, after plaintiff complained about sanitary issues in the restroom facilities there. 17 (See id. at 9–11.) The complaint separately asserts that Livingston Community Health 18 wrongfully terminated plaintiff on May 19, 2018, in retaliation for her voicing complaints about, 19 among other things, how Livingstone Community Health handled walk-in patients. (See id. at 20 18–27.) In the section of the standard complaint form that inquires as to the basis for federal 21 question jurisdiction, plaintiff mentions a “law enforcement record by [National Labor Relations 22 Board (NLRB)] Case 32-CA-205510.” (Id. at 4.) Apart from this, it is entirely unclear how her 23 claims arise under federal law. While the NLRB is a federal agency, plaintiff fails to identify or 24 even suggest what federal law any of her claims arise under. 25 Alternatively, under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, federal district courts have original jurisdiction over 26 civil actions in diversity cases “where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of 27 $75,000” and where the matter is between “citizens of different states.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 28 “Subject matter jurisdiction based upon diversity of citizenship requires that no defendant have 1 the same citizenship as any plaintiff.” Tosco Corp. v. Communities for a Better Env’t, 236 F.3d 2 495, 499 (9th Cir. 2001), abrogated on other grounds by Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 3 (2010). “A plaintiff suing in federal court must show in his pleading, affirmatively and distinctly, 4 the existence of whatever is essential to federal jurisdiction, and, if he does not do so, the court . . 5 . on discovering the [defect], must dismiss the case, unless the defect be corrected by 6 amendment.” Id. (quoting Smith v. McCullough, 270 U.S. 456 (1926)); see also Kanter v. 7 Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857-858 (9th Cir. 2001) (“the party asserting diversity 8 jurisdiction bears the burden of proof.”). 9 Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that plaintiff and at least one defendant are residents of 10 California (see Doc. 1 at 1–2), which destroys the requisite complete diversity in this case. See 11 Cook v. AVI Casino Enterprises, Inc., 548 F.3d 718, 722 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Caterpillar, Inc. 12 v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996) (stating that diversity jurisdiction requires “complete diversity of 13 citizenship”)). 14 This Court has an independent duty to consider its own subject matter jurisdiction, whether 15 or not the issue is raised by the parties and must dismiss an action over which it lacks jurisdiction. 16 See Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th 17 Cir. 1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); see also Cal. Diversified Promotions, Inc. v. Musick, 505 F.2d 18 278, 280 (9th Cir. 1974) (“It has long been held that a judge can dismiss sua sponte for lack of 19 jurisdiction.”). Here, it appears that the court would lack subject matter jurisdiction over the claims 20 in the complaint. Therefore, plaintiff is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE why this case should 21 not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court CAUTIONS plaintiff that, if 22 she fails to respond to the jurisdictional concerns raised above within fourteen (14) days of the date 23 of service of this Order, the court will dismiss the entire complaint. 24 In addition, plaintiff appears to have joined two wholly independent wrongful termination 25 claims into a single lawsuit. According to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2), a plaintiff 26 may permissively join defendants in a single action only if (1) the plaintiff is asserting a right to 27 relief against the defendants “jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out 28 of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences,” and (2) the claims 1 | involve a “question of law or fact common to all defendants.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Though 2 | improper joinder is not grounds for dismissal of an action, a court may on its own motion drop 3 | improperly joined parties or sever improperly joined claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. Accordingly, 4| plaintiff is also ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE why the Court should not dismiss one of the 5 | named defendants for improper joinder. Therefore, even if plaintiff is able to establish subject 6 | matter jurisdiction over one or more claims in this case, plaintiff is CAUTIONED that if she fails 7 | to respond to the above concerns regarding joinder within fourteen (14) days of the date of 8 | service of this Order, the court will dismiss the defendants other than the first named defendant: Taco Bell. 10 Plaintiff shall file a written response to the above orders to show cause within fourteen (14) 11 | days of this Order. Alternatively, plaintiff may elect to file a notice of dismissal of this action 12 | instead of filing a response to this Order. 13 | IS SO ORDERED. 14 Li fa £5 Dated: _ February 20, 2020 Sea 1" S98 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28