Tom Quach v. Ace Benedict Arca Lovalhato et al

Filing 8

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION. THE ACTION IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (lc). Modified on 12/4/2015 (lc).

O
JS-6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California

8
9
10
11

Case № 2:15-cv-09341-ODW (SS)

TOM QUACH,
Plaintiff,

12

v.

13

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

14

ACE BENEDICT ARCA LOVALHATI;

15

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

16

AGRICULTURE; and DOES 1–10,

17

inclusive,

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Defendants.

18
19

I.

INTRODUCTION

On December 3, 2015, Plaintiff Tom Quach filed this action in federal court

20
21

based on alleged diversity jurisdiction.

22

Complaint, it is clear that (1) the suit against the United States Department of

23

Agriculture (“United States”) is barred by sovereign immunity, and (2) Defendant Ace

24

Benedict Arca Lovalhati (“Lovalhati”) is not diverse from Plaintiff Quach. Thus, the

25

Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the case at bar. Consequently, this action

26

is DISMISSED without prejudice.1

27

1

28

(ECF No. 1.)

After reviewing Quach’s

After carefully considering Quach’s Complaint, the Court deems the matter appropriate for sua
sponte decision. Franklin v. State of Or., State Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1342 (9th Cir. 1981).

1

II.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2

This is a negligence action arising out of a motor vehicle accident. Quach

3

alleges that, on April 2, 2014, Lovalhati, while driving his employer-issued vehicle,

4

failed to stop and collided with Quach’s vehicle. (Complaint [“Compl.”] ¶¶ 11–17,

5

ECF No. 1.) As a direct and proximate result of the accident, Quach claims he was

6

severely injured and has suffered great pain and suffering. (Id. ¶ 19.) In turn, Quach

7

claims that the United States, as Lovalhati’s employer, is responsible for Quach’s

8

injuries under the respondeat superior doctrine. (Id. ¶¶ 20–24.)

9

Plaintiff is a citizen of California. (Id. ¶ 2.) Defendant Lovalhati is likewise a

10

citizen of California. (Id.) Quach alleges that Defendant United States Department of

11

Agriculture is a “federal government department” and a “citizen of an unknown state.”

12

(Id. ¶ 3.) Quach claims that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

13

§ 1332 (“diversity” jurisdiction) and supplemental jurisdiction over the state law

14

claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Quach makes no claims for federal question

15

jurisdiction.

16

III.

LEGAL STANDARD

17

Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction only as authorized by the

18

Constitution and Congress. U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1; see also Kokkonen v.

19

Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).

20

jurisdiction where an action arises under federal law, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or where each

21

plaintiff’s citizenship is diverse from each defendant’s citizenship and the amount in

22

controversy exceeds $75,000, id. § 1332(a). The court may dismiss the action sua

23

sponte where the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Frankin, 662 F.2d at 1342

24

(citing Cal. Diversified Promotions, Inc. v. Musick, 505 F.2d 278, 280 (9th Cir.

25

1974)). Moreover, where the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, “it is not required

26

to issue a summons or follow the other procedural requirements.” Loux v. Rhay, 375

27

F.2d 55, 58 (9th Cir. 1967).

28

2

Federal courts have

1

IV.

DISCUSSION

2

On December 3, 2015, Plaintiff Quach filed this action alleging claims wholly

3

based in state law and against a defendant with common citizenship. Simply stated,

4

this action cannot be originally filed in federal court because the complaint does not

5

competently allege facts supporting either diversity or federal question jurisdiction,

6

and therefore federal jurisdiction is improper. Frankin, 662 F.2d at 1342.

7

While Quach’s Complaint does name one potentially diverse defendant,2 the

8

United States, the well-settled doctrine of sovereign immunity bars suit. The United

9

States cannot be sued without its explicit consent. United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 195,

10

206 (1940); see also Lena v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 192 (1996) (Rehabilitation Act

11

lacked “unequivocal expression” of congressional intent required for waiver of

12

sovereign immunity.) With no illusions to any statutes conferring such consent,

13

Quach’s suit against the United States is therefore barred.

14

Leaving only Lovalhati as a Defendant, Quach’s suit doubly fails for want of

15

diversity jurisdiction. The Supreme Court “ha[s] consistently interpreted § 1332 as

16

requiring complete diversity: In a case with multiple plaintiffs and multiple

17

defendants, the presence in the action of a single plaintiff from the same State as a

18

single defendant deprives the district court of original diversity jurisdiction over the

19

entire action.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 553

20

(2005).

21

Lovalhati is also a California citizen. (Compl. ¶ 2.) Thus, this destroys complete

22

diversity.

Here, Quach alleges that he is a California citizen, and that Defendant

23

For the reasons discussed above, the Court DISMISSES the action for lack of

24

subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The action is dismissed

25

without prejudice. Freeman v. Oakland Unified Sch. Dist., 179 F.3d 846, 847 (9th

26

Cir. 1999) (“Dismissals for lack of jurisdiction ‘should be ... without prejudice so that

27
2

28

Because this action lacks complete diversity and therefore this Court lacks jurisdiction, the Court will not assess
whether an allegation that a defendant is a “citizen of another state” will suffice to establish diversity jurisdiction.
(Compl. ¶ 3.)

3

1

a plaintiff may reassert his claims in a competent court.’” (quoting Frigard v. United

2

States, 862 F.2d 201, 204 (9th Cir.1988)). The Clerk of the Court shall close the case.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

December 4, 2015

7
8
9
10

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4