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)

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, http://kepler.sos.ca.gov

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