Mophie Inc et al v. Loza and Loza LLP et al

Filing 17

(IN CHAMBERS): ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge David O. Carter RE DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION: (See document for details.) Court orders Plaintiff(s) to show cause in writing within 14 days of the date of this order why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant(s) may submit a response in the same time period. An amended complaint correcting the deficiencies will be deemed a sufficient response to this order to show cause. (rla)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No. SA CV 11-0539 DOC (MLGx)

Date: October 3, 2011

Title: MOPHIE, INC. v. LOZA & LOZA, LLP
DOCKET ENTRY
[I hereby certify that this document was served by first class mail or Government messenger service, postage prepaid, to all counsel (or parties) at their
respective most recent address of record in this action on this date.]
Date:____________ Deputy Clerk: ___________________________________

PRESENT:
THE HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER, JUDGE
Julie Barrera
Courtroom Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:
NONE PRESENT

NONE PRESENT

PROCEEDING (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
On April 7, 2011, Plaintiff Mophie, Inc. (“Mophie”) filed the instant action in this Court.
The Complaint claims that this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1338, which allows
federal courts to hear cases involving federal patent law. The Complaint, however, does not expressly
allege any violations of federal patent law and therefore fails to establish that federal subject matter
jurisdiction exists. It is a fundamental precept that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.
Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374, 98 S. Ct. 2396, 2403 (1978). Indeed, a
federal court is presumed to lack jurisdiction unless the plaintiff proves the contrary. California ex rel.
Younger v. Andrus, 608 F.2d 1247, 1249 (9th Cir. 1979).
The basic statutory grants of federal court subject matter jurisdiction provide for two
types of jurisdiction: (1) federal question jurisdiction; and (2) diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.
Plaintiff’s Complaint establishes neither.
A.

No Federal Question Jurisdiction

MINUTES FORM 11 DOC
CIVIL - GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk: jcb
Page 1 of 2

Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to adequately plead federal question jurisdiction. Federal
question jurisdiction extends to those cases in which a complaint establishes that either: (1) federal law
creates the cause of action; or (2) the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a
substantial question of federal law. Federal Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S.
1, 27-28 (1983). The presence or absence of federal question jurisdiction is governed by the wellpleaded complaint rule, which provides that federal question jurisdiction exists only when a federal
question is presented on the face of plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint. Wayne v. DHL Worldwide
Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2002).
Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint does not allege or plead any claim raising a federal question.
The face of the Complaint states three causes of action which arise under California law: (1)
professional negligence; (2) breach of fiduciary duty; and (3) negligent misrepresentation. Though
these causes of action allegedly occurred during Defendant Loza & Loza, LLP’s (“Loza”) handling of
federal patent applications (and subsequent litigation related to said patents), none of the causes of
action themselves arise under federal patent law. Therefore, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to plead that this
Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
B.

No Diversity Jurisdiction

Plaintiffs’ Complaint does not plead diversity jurisdiction either. Federal diversity
jurisdiction requires that all plaintiffs to an action be “citizens of different States” than all defendants,
and that the amount in controversy exceed $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff’s Complaint does not
assert that the plaintiffs are citizens of different states than all defendants. Therefore, Plaintiffs’
complaint does not plead that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the action due to diversity
of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
C.

Disposition

Accordingly, the Court orders Plaintiff(s) to show cause in writing within 14 days of the
date of this order why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Defendant(s) may submit a response in the same time period. An amended complaint correcting the
deficiencies will be deemed a sufficient response to this order to show cause.
The Clerk shall serve this minute order on all parties to the action.

MINUTES FORM 11 DOC
CIVIL - GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk: jcb
Page 2 of 2