Cason v. California Check Cashing Stores

Filing 15

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 4/4/2014 02:00 PM. Show Cause Response due by 4/2/2014. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on March 28, 2014. (jcslc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/28/2014) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/28/2014: # 2 Certificate/Proof of Service) (klhS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JAMES K. CASON,
Plaintiff,

Case No. C-14-00630 JCS
Related Case No. C-13-03388 JCS

8
v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

CALIFORNIA CHECK CASHING
STORES,
Defendant.

12
13

This case is related to an earlier case, Case No. 13-03388 JCS (“Cason I”). The parties

14

have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

15

636(c). In Cason I, the undersigned found that there was no subject matter jurisdiction over

16

Plaintiff’s claims, which are essentially the same as the claims asserted in Case No. 14-00630

17

(“Cason II”). On October 11, 2013, the Court issued an order dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint in

18

Cason I with leave to amend within 30 days. Mr. Cason did not amend the complaint and on

19

December 3, 2013, this Court erroneously entered final judgment against Plaintiff in Cason I.

20

The Ninth Circuit has held that it is “well settled that a judgment is void if the court that

21

considered it lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter. . . .” Watts v. Pinckney, 752 F.2d 406, 409

22

(9th Cir. 1985) (quotations and citations omitted). Further, where the court discovers that a

23

judgment is void, it may vacate the judgment, sua sponte, pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal

24

Rules of Civil Procedure, so long as the party that obtained the judgment is first given notice and

25

an opportunity to be heard. Kingvision Pay-Per-View Ltd. v. Lake Alice Bar, 168 F.3d 347, 352

26

(9th Cir. 1999). Finally, to the extent Defendant argues in its pending motion to dismiss that

27

Cason II is subject to dismissal under the doctrine of res judicata, that argument fails if the

28

judgment in Cason I is vacated.

1

Therefore, Defendant is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Court should not vacate

2

the final judgment that was entered in Cason I. Defendant is further ORDERED TO SHOW

3

CAUSE why this action, Cason II, should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject matter

4

jurisdiction. As Defendant argued in its motion, Plaintiff has asserted no cognizable federal claim

5

in Cason II. In addition, for the reasons set forth in its order of dismissal in Cason I (Case No. C-

6

13-03388 JCS, Docket No. 9), it is clear from the face of Plaintiff’s complaint in Cason II that the

7

amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction is not met.

8
9

A show cause hearing is set for Friday, April 4, 2014 at 2 p.m. to be held concurrently
with the motion hearing and case management conference, which are already set for the same time
and date. Defendant shall be permitted to file a brief, not to exceed 10 pages, addressing the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

issues raised in this Order no later than Wednesday, April 2, 2014.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: March 28, 2014

15
16
17

______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2