M.P.G. v. Antioch Unified School District ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 M.P.G., Case No. 23-cv-01167-TSH 8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: 9 v. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 10 ANTIOCH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 On March 15, 2023, M.P.G., through his guardian ad litem, filed suit against the Antioch 14 Unified School District, alleging claims for: (1) discrimination in violation of the Americans with 15 Disabilities Act; (2) violation of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; (3) negligence; and 16 (4) violation of California Education Code section 220. However, on September 5, 2023, the 17 Court dismissed all but M.P.G.’s negligence cause of action. ECF No. 26. Although it was 18 unclear if M.P.G. could plausibly allege claims under the ADA, section 504, and/or California’s 19 section 220, the Court granted him a final opportunity to do so,1 setting a deadline of September 20 26, 2023. M.P.G. did not file an amended complaint by the deadline. Thus, the only claim 21 pending in this case is a state law claim for negligence. 22 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized 23 by Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 24 (1994). “Subject matter jurisdiction can never be forfeited or waived and federal courts have a 25 continuing independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists.” 26 Leeson v. Transamerica Disability Income Plan, 671 F.3d 969, 975 n.12 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal 27 1 quotation marks and citations omitted); Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2 2004) (noting that district courts are “obligated to consider sua sponte whether [they] have subject 3 matter jurisdiction”). There are two bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction: (1) federal 4 question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and (2) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 5 A district court has federal question jurisdiction in “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, 6 laws, or treaties of the United States.” Id. at § 1331. A district court has diversity jurisdiction 7 “where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, . . . and is between citizens 8 of different states, or citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state . . . .” Id. § 9 1332(a)(1)-(2). 10 In his complaint, M.P.G. avers that the Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 11 U.S.C. § 1331. First Am. Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 22. However, all claims based on federal question 12 jurisdiction have been dismissed. As to diversity jurisdiction, M.P.G. avers that he is a resident of 13 the City of Antioch, County of Contra Costa, California, and that Defendant is a public entity duly 14 incorporated and operating under California law as a school district. Id. ¶¶ 2-3. Thus, diversity 15 jurisdiction also does not exist. 16 Where a federal court has original jurisdiction over a claim, the court may exercise 17 supplemental jurisdiction over “all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within 18 such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 19 1367(a). State claims are part of the same case or controversy as federal claims “when they derive 20 from a common nucleus of operative fact and are such that a plaintiff would ordinarily be expected 21 to try them in one judicial proceeding.” Kuba v. 1-A Agric. Assoc., 387 F.3d 850, 855-56 (9th Cir. 22 2004) (internal quotation marks, citation omitted). However, supplemental jurisdiction “is a 23 doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff’s right,” and district courts “can decline to exercise 24 jurisdiction over pendent claims for a number of valid reasons.” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of 25 Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 172 (1997) (internal quotation marks, citations omitted). Pursuant to 28 26 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court may “decline supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if it “has 27 dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” and need not state its reason for 1 Money Source, Inc., 2023 WL 4305059, at *6 (E.D. Cal. June 30, 2023). A district court’s 2 || discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law “is informed by the Gibbs 3 values ‘of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 4 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (quoting United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 5 || (1966)). 6 As this case remains in the pleading stage, the Court finds judicial economy favors 7 || declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismissing M.P.G.’s negligence claim without 8 || prejudice to refiling in state court. Accordingly, M.P.G. is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why 9 || this case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. M.P.G. shall file a written response to 10 this Order by October 4, 2023. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this action for lack of 11 subject matter jurisdiction. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: September 27, 2023 AY \ . Lj — THOMAS S. HIXSON = 16 United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28