Khalji v. Deloitte & Touche LLP et al

Filing 39

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - The defendant may file a three-page brief explaining why the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction by 8/8/2014. The plaintiff may file a three-page brief showing cause why the action should not be dismissed for lack of subj ect matter jurisdiction by 8/13/2014. The issue of subject matter jurisdiction will be heard 8/27/2014 02:00 PM at the same time as the originally scheduled hearing for the defendant's motions to transfer venue and to dismiss. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 08/06/2014. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/6/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

NAZIR KHALJI,

Case No. 14-cv-00568-WHO

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP, et al.,
Defendants.

Re: Dkt. No. 37, 38

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION

12
13

On July 2, 2014, defendant Deloitte & Touche LLP filed a motion to dismiss the Fifth and

14

Sixth Causes of Action in this action. Dkt. No. 19. On the same day, the defendant filed a motion

15

to transfer venue from this Court to the United States District Court for the Southern District of

16

New York. Dkt. No. 23. The defendant states that I need not decide the motion to dismiss if I

17

grant the motion to transfer. Dkt. No. 20 at 1 n.1. Both motions are scheduled to be heard on

18

August 27, 2014.

19

On July 30, 2014, plaintiff Nazir Khalji filed an untimely opposition to the motion to

20

transfer. Dkt. No. 33. The next day, the plaintiff filed an untimely opposition to the motion to

21

dismiss. Dkt. No. 34.

22

On August 5, 2014, the parties filed a stipulation to retroactively extend the deadline of the

23

opposition briefs for both motions to July 31, 2014, and to extend the deadline of the reply briefs

24

to August 8, 2014. Dkt. No. 37. The same day, the defendant filed a letter with the Court

25

asserting that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action and seeking guidance as to

26

how to proceed. Dkt. No. 38.

27
28

The defendant did not raise the issue of subject matter jurisdiction in its motion to dismiss,
where it should have been raised. Nonetheless, the Court has an independent obligation to assess

1

whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over any action before it. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3).

2

Accordingly, I ORDER as follows:

3



reply briefs shall be filed no later than August 8, 2014.

4
5

As stipulated, the plaintiff’s opposition briefs are deemed timely filed and the defendant’s



No later than August 8, 2014, the defendant may file a three-page brief explaining why the

6

Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Any exhibits or declarations supporting the brief

7

may not exceed five pages.

8



the action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Any exhibits or

9

declarations supporting the brief may not exceed five pages.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

No later than August 13, 2014, the plaintiff may file a three-page brief showing cause why



The issue of subject matter jurisdiction will be heard at the same time as the originally

12

scheduled hearing for the defendant’s motions to transfer venue and to dismiss.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15
16

Dated: August 6, 2014
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2