Gray v. City and County of San Francisco

Filing 41

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AND VACATING HEARING by Judge William Alsup [granting 39 Motion to Dismiss]. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/7/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
JON GRAY,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

Plaintiff,

No. C 13-03513 WHA

v.

14

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, and DOES 1-10, inclusive,

15

Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING
MOTION TO DISMISS
AND VACATING HEARING

/

16
17
18

INTRODUCTION
In this federal labor-law action, defendant moves to dismiss the complaint for lack of

19

subject-matter jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, and violation of Federal Rule of Civil

20

Procedure 8. To the extent stated below, the motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter

21

jurisdiction is GRANTED. The hearing on February 27, 2014, is hereby VACATED.

22

STATEMENT

23

The following facts are assumed to be true for the purposes of defendant’s motion

24

to dismiss. Pro se plaintiff Jon Gray had been a Deputy Sheriff for the City and County of

25

San Francisco for almost ten years when his employment was terminated on October 6, 2008.

26

According to the complaint, plaintiff’s termination was “due to various progressive disciplines.”

27

The union appealed all but three disciplinary actions. After plaintiff’s termination, his request

28

for these three appeals was denied, allegedly because the union abandoned its appeals.

1

According to the complaint, the union claimed it never abandoned the appeals. The complaint

2

alleges that the denial of disciplinary appeals violated plaintiff’s due process rights per the

3

collective bargaining agreement. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief requesting that defendant

4

provide the requested disciplinary appeals. Further, the complaint alleges damages in the

5

amount of $1,727,468 for lost wages, future earnings, and benefits. Defendant now moves to

6

dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, among other reasons. This order only reaches the

7

matter of subject-matter jurisdiction.

8

ANALYSIS

have original jurisdiction over claims that raise a federal question or where there is a matter in

11
For the Northern District of California

The central issue is whether there is federal subject-matter jurisdiction. Federal courts

10

United States District Court

9

controversy exceeding $75,000 between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1332(a).

12

The action was commenced here by a former Deputy Sheriff for the City and County

13

of San Francisco on the sole basis of federal-question jurisdiction. The complaint alleges that

14

defendant violated the National Labor Relations Act. 29 U.S.C. 151, et seq. This anchoring

15

federal claim fails because the Act specifically exempts “any State or political subdivision

16

thereof” from the definition of “employer.” 29 U.S.C. 152(2). Similarly, the term “employee”

17

excludes a person employed by an entity that is not an “employer” under the Act. 29 U.S.C.

18

152(3). Therefore, plaintiff’s claim does not raise a federal question.

19

This order notes that the complaint alleges a vague “due process” violation. Based on the

20

facts alleged in the complaint, however, it is not clear whether plaintiff is alleging a federal due

21

process violation, a state constitutional due process violation, or merely a contractual claim for

22

relief based on collective bargaining. Regardless, plaintiff has not pled sufficient facts to

23

warrant giving any credence to this argument.

24

To the extent that the complaint alleges any state-law claims, the only basis for

25

exercising jurisdiction is supplemental jurisdiction. A district court may decline to exercise

26

supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim if “the district court has dismissed all claims over

27

which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(3). “To decline jurisdiction under

28

[Section] 1367(c)(3), the district court must first identify the dismissal that triggers the exercise
2

1

of discretion and then explain how declining jurisdiction serves the objectives of economy,

2

convenience and fairness to the parties, and comity.” Trustees of Constr. Indus. & Laborers

3

Health & Welfare Trust v. Desert Valley Landscape & Maint., Inc., 333 F.3d 923, 925 (9th Cir.

4

2003). The Supreme Court has also instructed that “if the federal claims are dismissed before

5

trial, even though not insubstantial in a jurisdiction sense, the state claims should be dismissed as

6

well. United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966).

7

In this action, the principles of judicial economy, convenience and fairness to the parties,

8

and comity weigh against retaining supplemental jurisdiction. Plaintiff filed the complaint less

9

than seven months ago and the case remains in the early stages of litigation. There has not been
enough work done on this action and it is more efficient to dismiss the claims than exercise

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

supplemental jurisdiction.

12

Plaintiff cannot remedy the fatal deficiency in his complaint because the NLRA exempts

13

States and political subdivisions. Since any leave to amend would be futile, the order dismisses

14

the complaint with prejudice. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter

15

jurisdiction is GRANTED.

16

CONCLUSION

17

For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter

18

jurisdiction is GRANTED. The hearing on February 27, 2014, is hereby VACATED. The Clerk

19

shall close the file.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated: February 7, 2014.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
3