Ramirez v. Android

Filing 16

ORDER Dismissing Amended Complaints. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 8/31/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/31/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MANUEL ALVAREZ CABELLO

Case No. 17-cv-03547-EMC

8

RAMIREZ,

RELATED CASE
Plaintiff,

9

v.

10

ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED
COMPLAINTS

ANDROID,

Docket No. 15, C-17-3547
Defendant.

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

Case No. 17-cv-03570-EMC

Docket No. 16, C-17-3570
13
14

MANUEL ALVAREZ CABELLO

15

RAMIREZ,
Plaintiff,

16

v.

17
18

GOOGLE INC.,
Defendant.

19
20
21

Plaintiff Manuel Alvarez Cabello Ramirez, proceeding pro se,1 initiated the above-

22

referenced actions as patent infringement actions. Judge Laporte granted his application to

23

proceed in forma pauperis but ultimately recommended, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), that his

24

cases be dismissed for failure to state any plausible claim for relief. This Court adopted Judge

25

Laporte’s recommendation and dismissed the cases but gave Mr. Ramirez leave to amend. Mr.

26
27
28

1

Mr. Ramirez is currently incarcerated. According to Mr. Ramirez, in November 2016, he was
pulled over for a traffic violation and, because he was not able to provide “proper documentation,”
he was arrested and is “now facing possible deportation.”

1

Ramirez has now filed an amended complaint in each action and the Court reviews those

2

pleadings pursuant to § 1915(e).
The content of the amended complaints are essentially the same. In Case No. C-17-3547

4

EMC, Mr. Ramirez alleges that, in August 2016, he used his cell phone and his e-mail address to

5

provide “upgraded software to Android for contract pay.” However, because he is an

6

“undocumented immigrant,” he was not able to give Android the documentation needed to receive

7

“proper compensation for work provided.” Mr. Ramirez adds that, because of the services

8

provided to Android, he should be deemed “a current employee” and the Court should order

9

Android to provide him with “an e-verify[2] or HB-1 work visa” as well as “proper compensation

10

for work provided.” In Case No. C-17-3570 EMC, Mr. Ramirez makes the same allegations but

11

with respect to Google instead of Android.
As the complaints currently stand, there are insufficient allegations to show that this Court

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

3

13

has subject matter jurisdiction over the cases. In general, “original federal subject matter

14

jurisdiction may be premised on two grounds”: (1) federal question jurisdiction and (2) diversity

15

jurisdiction. Tourigny v. Symantec Corp., 110 F. Supp. 3d 961, 962 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (Cousins,

16

J.). District courts have federal question jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the

17

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. District courts have

18

diversity jurisdiction over “all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or

19

value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs,” and the action is, e.g., between “citizens of

20

different states” or between “citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state.” Id. §

21

1332(a).
In the instant cases, Mr. Ramirez has not invoked any federal law to support his claim that

22
23

Android and/or Google3 are liable to him. Accordingly, there does not appear to be federal

24
25
26
27
28

2

According to the USCIS website, “E-Verify is an Internet-based system that allows businesses to
determine the eligibility of their employees to work in the United States.”
https://www.uscis.gov/e-verify (last visited August 31, 2017).
3

The Court notes that Android does not appear to be a legal entity separate and distinct from
Google. See http://www.businessinsider.com/how-android-was-created-2015-3 (last visited
August 31, 2017) (noting that Google acquired Android).
2

1

question jurisdiction over Mr. Ramirez’s cases. As for diversity jurisdiction, even accepting that

2

Mr. Ramirez (as an alien) has a different citizenship from Android and/or Google, see Google Inc.

3

v. Eolas Techs., Inc., No. 15-cv-05446-JST, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78842, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June

4

16, 2016) (indicating that Google is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of

5

business in California), the amount in controversy does not appear to exceed $75,000. Mr.

6

Ramirez states no allegations establishing the amount in controversy.

7

Accordingly, the Court hereby DISMISSES the amended complaints in the above-

8

referenced actions. The Court shall give Mr. Ramirez one final opportunity to amend his

9

complaints. If Mr. Ramirez files amended complaints, he must make clear what is the basis for
subject matter jurisdiction and include factual allegations to support the assertion of subject matter

11

jurisdiction.

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Mr. Ramirez shall have until November 6, 2017, to file amended pleadings. If

13

amended complaints are not filed by this date, then the Clerk of the Court shall enter final

14

judgment in accordance with this order and close the file in this case.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18
19
20

Dated: August 31 2017
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3