Carrascal et al v. Abraham et al

Filing 37

ORDER by Judge Charles R. Breyer granting 34 Motion to Dismiss. (crblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/10/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/10/2017: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (lsS, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiffs, 10 11 No. 3:16-cv-03284 CRB FRANCISCO CARRASCAL, RHONDA BURTON, and THAWEESAP UTTHO, v. 12 AVI-BEN ABRAHAM, JR., and TIKI BELKIN 13 Defendants. / 14 15 In their initial complaint, Plaintiffs brought claims under the Age Discrimination in 16 Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), Title 17 VII of the Civil Rights Act (“Title VII”), and the Equal Pay Act of 1963. See Compl. (dkt. 1) 18 at 2–9. As the Court informed them at the November 18, 2016 hearing, those statutes apply 19 only to certain employers. The ADEA applies only to employers with twenty or more 20 employees. 29 U.S.C. § 630(b). The ADA and Title VII apply only to employers with 21 fifteen or more employees. 42 U.S.C. § 12111(5)(A); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b). The Equal Pay 22 Act applies only to enterprises “whose annual gross” income “is not less than $500,000.” 23 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1)(A). The complaint contained no allegations that Defendants met those 24 requirements, and so the Court dismissed it for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction but granted 25 leave to amend. See Minute Entry (dkt. 30). 26 Plaintiffs have again failed to allege that Defendants meet any of those statutory 27 requirements in their amended complaint or in their opposition to the motion to dismiss. See 28 generally FAC (dkt. 33); Opp’n (dkt. 36). That makes sense, as the allegations then and now 1 concern an employment dispute between a man and his former caretakers.1 That being so, it 2 is clear that further amendment cannot cure the complaint’s jurisdictional defects without 3 contradicting the original allegations. See Reddy v. Litton Indus., 912 F.2d 291, 296 (9th 4 Cir. 1990). The Court therefore “must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) 5 (emphasis added); see also FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 230 (1990) (“The 6 federal courts are under an independent obligation to examine their own jurisdiction.”). The 7 case is therefore DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to all defendants for lack of subject- 8 matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs’ claims might have merit, but they may not bring them in 9 federal court. Instead, they must bring them in state court.2 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Plaintiffs also ask the Court to recuse because, in their words, it is “not going to be 11 fair,” it “ignored” two of their motions, and it belongs “to the American Jewish Heritage, a 12 monolithic powerful community that controls everything in the U.S.A.” FAC at 11–12. The 13 request is DENIED. None of Plaintiffs’ allegations suggest that the Court’s “impartiality 14 might reasonably be questioned.” Clemens v. United States Dist. Ct., 428 F.3d 1175, 1178 15 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Hernandez, 109 16 F.3d 1450, 1453 (9th Cir. 1997) (noting that this standard applies for recusal under both 28 17 U.S.C. § 144 and 28 U.S.C. § 455). And where “there is no legitimate reason to recuse,” the 18 Court has a “strong duty” not to step aside. Clemens, 428 F.3d at 1179 (quoting United 19 States v. Cooley, 1 F.3d 985, 996 (10th Cir. 1993)). 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: March 10, 2017 CHARLES R. BREYER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 1 26 27 28 Plaintiffs also allege that the man’s sister, Defendant Tiki Belkin, had arranged their work schedules. See FAC at 3. She moved to dismiss the original complaint as well as the first amended complaint. See MTD Compl. (dkt. 12); MTD FAC (dkt. 34). Because the Court has determined that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction, it need not address whether Ms. Belkin is a proper defendant. 2 The state courthouse in San Francisco is located at 400 McAllister Street. G:\CRBALL\2016\3284\16-3284 (Carrascal) Order Dismissing Case with Prejudice.wpd 2

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?