David Daryl Jones v. City of Pasadena et al
Filing
8
(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge John A. Kronstadt. On or before July 25, 2017, the parties are to submit any memoranda, each of which is not to exceed five pages, with respect to whether this Court has subje ct matter jurisdiction over this Action. Upon receiving these memoranda, the Court will determine whether a hearing on any issue raised is required or if the matter can be addressed by the Court without a hearing. REFER TO THE COURT'S ORDER FOR DETAILS. (pso)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.
LA CV17-04966 JAK (PLAx)
Title
David Daryl Jones v. City of Pasadena, et al.
Present: The Honorable
Date
July 13, 2017
JOHN A. KRONSTADT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Andrea Keifer
Not Reported
Deputy Clerk
Court Reporter / Recorder
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Not Present
Not Present
Proceedings:
(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION
David Daryl Jones (“Plaintiff”) alleges that the City of Pasadena and John W. Nam (“Defendants”) “did not
follow proper procedures,” which resulted in the death of his son. Dkt. 1. The pleading that initiated this
action refers to proceedings in a Superior Court and Court of Appeal of California in which this claim
appears to have been addressed on the merits.
As a court of restricted jurisdiction, see Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377
(1994), this Court must determine the issue of subject matter jurisdiction before reaching the merits of a
case. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998). Federal courts have original
jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28
U.S.C. § 1331.
For a case to ‘arise under’ federal law, a plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint must establish
either (1) that federal law creates the cause of action or (2) that the plaintiff's asserted right
to relief depends on the resolution of a substantial question of federal law. Federal
jurisdiction cannot hinge upon defenses or counterclaims, whether actual or anticipated.
K2 Am. Corp. v. Roland Oil & Gas, LLC, 653 F.3d 1024, 1029 (9th Cir. 2011).
The party seeking to establish jurisdiction bears the burden of proving the same. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at
377. Here, the Complaint does not do so. Thus, it does not establish a cause of action “arising under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. As noted, it also refers to
proceedings in a California Superior Court and Court of Appeal in which the merits of the claims were
addressed. In general, there is no federal jurisdiction to review such proceedings. Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co..
263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923); D.G. Lt. pp. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482-86 (1983). Accordingly, this
Order to Show Cause Re: Jurisdiction is issued, given the absence of an adequate showing of federal
question jurisdiction at this time.
Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.
LA CV17-04966 JAK (PLAx)
Date
Title
July 13, 2017
David Daryl Jones v. City of Pasadena, et al.
On or before July 25, 2017, the parties are to submit any memoranda, each of which is not to exceed five
pages, with respect to whether this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this Action. Upon receiving
these memoranda, the Court will determine whether a hearing on any issue raised is required or if the
matter can be addressed by the Court without a hearing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
:
Initials of Preparer
ak
Page 2 of 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?