Cardan v. Villarigosa et al
Filing
8
ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) .(lc) Modified on 8/7/2013. (lc).
O
JS-6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
CYRUS CARDAN,
12
13
14
15
16
v.
Plaintiff,
ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA et al.,
Case No. 2:13-cv-4625-ODW(PJWx)
ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR
LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER
JURISDICTION
Defendants.
In its July 2, 2013 Order, the Court pointed out that the Complaint failed to
17
states facts that would give rise to federal-question jurisdiction.
(ECF No. 6.)
18
Thereafter, Plaintiff Cyrus Cardan filed his First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 7.)
19
The main difference between the First Amended Complaint and the original
20
Complaint is the insertion of the federal statute 26 U.S.C. § 42.
21
Cardan’s First Amended Complaint appears to allege a breach of contract
22
against about a hundred defendants, concerning violations of rental agreements at the
23
Rainbow Apartments. While Cardan’s Complaint alleges there is federal-question
24
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the Court does not see how that applies.
25
Section 42 regulates the low-income housing credit for qualified low-income
26
buildings. There is no individual cause of action set forth in the statute. Further,
27
Cardan does not explain how this statute applies to his case, and the Court cannot see
28
how it could apply. The only relation between the statute and this case is the fact that
1
the Rainbow Apartments were allegedly built, maintained, and regulated under the
2
low-income housing guidelines under the statute. But this alone does not give rise to
3
federal-question jurisdiction.
4
Although the Court is required to give pro se plaintiffs some leniency in terms
5
of procedure, the complaint must still be adequately plead. See Eldridge v. Block, 832
6
F.2d 1132, 1135–36 (9th Cir. 1987). The Court finds nothing in the First Amended
7
Complaint that would rise to subject-matter jurisdiction. The Court also believes that
8
any further attempts to perfect the pleadings would be futile under these facts. Thus,
9
this case is hereby DISMISSED for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ.
10
P. 12(h)(3).
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
August 7, 2013
13
14
15
____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?