Addie M Miller v. Walt Disney Company Channel 7 KABC et al

Filing 20

ORDER that the Court DENIES Millers Motion for Reconsideration 17 . The Court also VACATES the November 25, 2013 hearing date by Judge Otis D. Wright, II (lc)

Download PDF
O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ADDIE M. MILLER, 12 13 14 15 v. Case No. 2:13-cv-06144-ODW(SHx) Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WALT DISNEY COMPANY CHANNEL 7 KABC; NBC4-NBC TELEMUNDO, LLC, Defendants. 16 17 On October 22, 2013, Plaintiff Addie M. Miller filed a Motion for 18 Reconsideration of the Court’s October 21, 2013 Order Dismissing Case Without 19 Prejudice. (ECF Nos. 16, 17.) Miller contends that the Court erred when it dismissed 20 her case because she argues that the Court has jurisdiction under Article III of the 21 United States Constitution. 22 complaint. 23 24 She also requests leave to file a second amended Central District Local Rule 7-18 provides that a party may move for reconsideration only on limited grounds: 25 (a) a material difference in fact or law from that presented to the Court 26 before such decision that in the exercise of reasonable diligence could not 27 have been known to the party moving for reconsideration at the time of 28 such decision, or (b) the emergence of new material facts or a change of 1 law occurring after the time of such decision, or (c) a manifest showing 2 of a failure to consider material facts presented to the Court before such 3 decision. 4 The Local Rule further cautions, “No motion for reconsideration shall in any manner 5 repeat any oral or written argument made in support of or in opposition to the original 6 motion.” C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-18. 7 The Court finds that Miller has not adequately presented any proper ground for 8 reconsidering the Court’s dismissal of her case. It is unquestionable at this point that 9 the Court does not have jurisdiction over her case. There are only two possible 10 methods of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction under Article III. First, a case may 11 arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States—so-called federal- 12 question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Or a case may be brought between parties of 13 diverse citizenship where the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of 14 $75,000. Id. § 1332(a). Neither of these jurisdictional bases apply to Miller’s case. 15 As the Court noted in its previous Order to Show Cause and dismissal Order, 16 Miller has not alleged a valid federal claim. Rather, Miller’s allegations sound in 17 common-law fraud, which is a creature of state—not federal—law. (ECF No. 16, at 18 3.) While Miller requests leave to amend her Complaint to include a citation to 19 Article III, the Constitution does not provide Miller with any valid cause of action. 20 (Id. at 2.) 21 controversies”; it is not a source of general subject-matter jurisdiction. U.S. Const. 22 art. III, § 2. Article III limits the federal judiciary’s power to hear “cases and 23 Neither has Miller established diversity jurisdiction. She has not alleged each 24 Defendant’s citizenship, that is, their state of incorporation and principal place of 25 business. The Court takes judicial notice that the California Secretary of State lists 26 Walt Disney Company’s address as 500 S. Buena Vista Street, Burbank, California 27 91521. See Business Search, California Secretary of State, 28 (entity number C1770422); Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2). Under the complete-diversity 2 1 rule, Miller cannot establish diversity jurisdiction if any Defendant is a citizen of the 2 same state as her, i.e., California. Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996). 3 Since Walt Disney Company is headquartered in California, it is a California citizen. 4 Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 92–93 (2010); 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Complete 5 diversity—and accordingly diversity jurisdiction—therefore does not exist in this 6 case. 7 The Court still finds that it lacks jurisdiction. The Court consequently must 8 dismiss Miller’s case notwithstanding her pleas to the contrary. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h) 9 (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court 10 must dismiss the action.”). Of course, the Court dismissed Miller’s action without 11 prejudice, which means that this Court has not affected her legal rights. Miller is free 12 to file her case in an appropriate state court where subject-matter jurisdiction will not 13 likely pose an obstacle to her. 14 Finding no basis for reconsidering the Court’s previous dismissal Order, the 15 Court DENIES Miller’s Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF No. 17.) The Court also 16 VACATES the November 25, 2013 hearing date. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 October 25, 2013 20 21 22 ____________________________________ OTIS D. WRIGHT, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?