City of Palmdale v. California High-Speed Rail Authority et al

Filing 24

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr on 8/2/2011 ORDERING that Plaintiff shall explain the basis of subject matter jurisdiction in a filing due on or before August 12, 2011. Any response to this filing shall be filed on or befor e August 22, 2011. A hearing on the subject matter jurisdiction issue is scheduled to commence at 10:0 0 a.m. on August 29, 2011. Further, in light of the briefing schedule regarding the subject matter jurisdiction issue, the hearing on Plaintiff� 39;s motion for a preliminary injunction currently scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on August 22, 2011, is rescheduled to commence at 10:00 a.m. on October 3, 2011. Defendants shall file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the preliminary injunction motion on or before September 12, 2011. Plaintiff may file a reply on or before September 19, 2011. (Duong, D)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

CITY OF PALMDALE, a charter
city,

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL
AUTHORITY, a public agency;
ROELOF VAN ARK, Chief Executive
Officer; and DOES 1-10,
inclusive,
Defendants.
________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:11-cv-01808-GEB-GGH
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:
FEDERAL SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION

16

Plaintiff has filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in

17

which it argues that Defendants should be prohibited “from continuing to

18

improperly and illegally use state and/or federal funds to conduct a

19

study of an alignment for the California High-Speed Rail Project.”

20

(Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj. 1:2-5.) However, Plaintiff has not stated

21

the basis of federal court subject matter jurisdiction over this case.

22

“The party seeking to invoke the court’s jurisdiction bears

23

the burden of establishing that jurisdiction exists.” Scott v. Breeland,

24

792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986).

25
26
27

The Court’s first consideration in reviewing
any action is whether it has subject matter
jurisdiction over the action. A federal court is a
court
of
limited
[]
jurisdiction
which
is
authorized by the Constitution or Congress to hear
only certain types of actions. . . .

28
1

1

4

It is a plaintiff’s responsibility in a
federal civil action to set forth in the complaint
the
basis
for
the
Court’s
subject
matter
jurisdiction. Furthermore, Rule 8(a)(1) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that a
complaint must contain a short and plain statement
of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction.

5

Welch v. Holder, No. 09-0534-WS-C, 2009 WL 4898357, at *3 (S.D. Ala.

6

Dec. 14, 2009) (internal citations, quotation marks, and brackets

7

omitted). While Plaintiff has cited federal statutes in its complaint,

8

Plaintiff has not shown on what basis the cited statutes provide a

9

“ground[] for the court’s jurisdiction[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1).

2
3

10

Specifically,

Plaintiff

alleges

in

paragraph

one

of

its

11

complaint that it “brings this complaint for declaratory and injunctive

12

relief against Defendants for their misappropriation of federal monies

13

specifically earmarked under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

14

pursuant to a grant issued by the Federal Railroad Administration in

15

2010[.]” (Compl. ¶ 1.) Further, the second paragraph of the complaint

16

contains the following conclusory allegations: “This Court has subject

17

matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal question),

18

2201 (authorizing declaratory relief) and 2202 (authorizing injunctive

19

relief).” Id. ¶ 2.

20

28 U.S.C. § 1331 confers subject matter jurisdiction over “all

21

civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the

22

United States.” Nothing in the complaint indicates this case concerns

23

the

24

notwithstanding Plaintiff’s contrary indication, § 1331 alone does not

25

confer

26

federal-question jurisdiction statute [which] is applicable only when

27

the plaintiff sues under a federal statute that creates a right of

28

action in federal court.” Williams v. United Airlines, Inc., 500 F.3d

Constitution

subject

or

a

matter

treaty

of

the

jurisdiction,

2

United

since

States.

it

is

Moreover,

a

“general

1

1019, 1022 (9th Cir. 2007). Therefore, Plaintiff’s conclusory statement

2

that jurisdiction is based on § 1331 is insufficient.

3

Further, Plaintiff’s citation to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202

4

does not establish subject matter jurisdiction, since “the Declaratory

5

Judgment Act[, codified at 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202,] does not itself

6

confer federal subject matter jurisdiction but merely provides an

7

additional remedy in cases where jurisdiction is otherwise established.”

8

City of Colton v. Am. Promotional Events, Inc., 614 F.3d 998, 1006 (9th

9

Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).

10

The court raises the issue of subject matter jurisdiction sua

11

sponte, since “courts . . . have an independent obligation to determine

12

whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a

13

challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514

14

(2006); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at

15

any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must

16

dismiss the action.”). “The existence of subject matter jurisdiction

17

goes to the very power of the district court to issue . . . rulings” on

18

the now pending injunction motion, since “the district court’s order

19

.

.

.

would

be

meaningless

if

the

district

court

was

without

20

jurisdiction over that [matter] in the first instance.” Merritt v.

21

Shuttle, Inc., 187 F.3d 263, 269 (2d Cir. 1999).

22

determine whether subject matter jurisdiction exists before briefing on

23

the matter and decision could “waste[] the court’s time[,]” and that of

24

the

25

jurisdiction. Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs v. Cnty. Of Plumas, 559

26

F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2009) (reversing and remanding district

27

court’s judgment since Ninth Circuit determined the district court

28

lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case).

parties

if

the

district

court

3

is

Therefore, failure to

without

subject

matter

1

Therefore, Plaintiff shall explain the basis of subject matter

2

jurisdiction in a filing due on or before August 12, 2011; any response

3

to this filing shall be filed on or before August 22, 2011. A hearing on

4

the subject matter jurisdiction issue is scheduled to commence at 10:00

5

a.m. on August 29, 2011.

6

Further, in light of the briefing schedule regarding the

7

subject matter jurisdiction issue, the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for

8

a preliminary injunction currently scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on August 22,

9

2011, is rescheduled to commence at 10:00 a.m. on October 3, 2011.

10

Defendants shall file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to

11

the preliminary injunction motion on or before September 12, 2011.

12

Plaintiff may file a reply on or before September 19, 2011.

13

Dated:

August 2, 2011

14
15
16

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4