Alatraqchi et al v. Uber Technologies,Inc.
Filing
32
ORDER TO DEFENDANTS TO SHOW CAUSE. Show Cause Response due by 10/11/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 10/4/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/4/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
Northern District of California
United States District Court
11
12
13
RASHID ALATRAQCHI,
Plaintiff,
14
15
Case No.: C-13-03156 JSC
ORDER TO DEFENDANTS TO SHOW
CAUSE
v.
16
17
18
UBER TECHNOLOGIES,INC., et al.,
Defendants.
19
20
Defendants removed this case to federal court based on federal question jurisdiction. At the
21
hearing on Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, Plaintiff represented that he did not
22
intend to allege any federal claims and that any amended complaint would plead state law claims
23
only. The Court concluded that Plaintiff had pled a federal claim and therefore removal was proper
24
and granted Defendant’s motion as to all claims. (Dkt. No. 27.) All claims were dismissed with
25
leave to amend, except for Plaintiff’s first and second claims against defendant Scott Munro, which
26
were dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff subsequently filed his Amended Complaint, which does not
27
appear to contain a federal claim, only state law claims.
28
1
Given the absence of any federal claim in the Amended Complaint, the Court hereby
2
ORDERS Defendants to SHOW CAUSE as to why this action should not be remanded to state court
3
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). See Williams v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 471 F.3d 975, 977 (9th
4
Cir. 2006) (“Dismissal of the federal claim . . . ordinarily . . . authorize[s] the district court to remand
5
the pendent state law claims”); see also United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726
6
(1966) (“Certainly, if the federal claims are dismissed before trial, even though not insubstantial in a
7
jurisdictional sense, the state claims should be dismissed as well”). Defendants shall file their
8
response to this Order no later than October 11, 2013.
portions of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and asking for guidance. (Dkt. No. 31.) Civil Local Rule
11
Northern District of California
In addition, the Court is in receipt of Defendants’ letter requesting that the Court strike
10
United States District Court
9
7-1(a) provides that “[a]ny written request to the Court for an order must be presented by one of the []
12
means [listed one through six.]” A letter to the Court is not one of the listed means. Moreover,
13
Plaintiff’s letter includes a request to strike claims from the Amended Complaint because they still
14
fail to state a claim. However, neither a party on a properly noticed motion nor a court acting sua
15
sponte may strike claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) because the amended
16
claims remain deficient under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Yamamoto v. Omiya,
17
564 F.2d 1319, 1327 (9th Cir. 1977) (“Rule 12(f) is neither an authorized nor a proper way to procure
18
the dismissal of all or a part of a complaint.”); see also Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d
19
970, 971 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that since rulings on Rule 12(f) motions are reviewed for abuse of
20
discretion, whereas rulings on Rule 12(b)(6) motion are reviewed de novo, it does not make sense to
21
use Rule 12(f) to dismiss a pleading).
Thus, to the extent Defendants are asking the Court to strike claims from the Amended
22
23
Complaint, Defendants’ requests are accordingly DENIED without prejudice to filing a properly
24
noticed motion pursuant to Local Rule 7-1 if the case remains in this Court following the resolution of
25
the Order to Show Cause.
26
//
27
//
28
//
2
1
2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 4, 2013
_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Northern District of California
United States District Court
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?