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 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